Is the list meant for apps that are legitimately FOSS/open source, according to the Open Source Definition - Open Source Initiative? Or does it also allow apps with non-free licenses, that don't meet the definition of open source?
For example, several apps were just added that are released under the "PolyForm Shield" license. From the What is PolyForm? – Polyform Project page:
PolyForm is not… Open source or free software. There are plenty of existing open source licenses. PolyForm is not a substitute for them, but an alternative for those who want to license source code under limited rights."
It's a so-called "source available" license, that contains a "non-compete" clause. That means users may modify it for their own use, but are prevented from creating a public fork - for example that might remove the requirement for a paid authorization key - because that would compete with the upstream's monetization.
Software developers are free to decide whether to release their code as open source, or as a non-free or commercial product. But they are not free to characterize the latter as being "open source". That kind of openwashing may be considered misleading or deceptive business practices, and is damaging to the legitimate FOSS movement. Please consider making an explicit policy for the open-source-mac-os-apps list to include only software with an approved open source license, or that are public domain, thanks.
The pull requests for the recent non-free apps:
#1007
#1008
#1009
#1010
#1011
Is the list meant for apps that are legitimately FOSS/open source, according to the Open Source Definition - Open Source Initiative? Or does it also allow apps with non-free licenses, that don't meet the definition of open source?
For example, several apps were just added that are released under the "PolyForm Shield" license. From the What is PolyForm? – Polyform Project page:
It's a so-called "source available" license, that contains a "non-compete" clause. That means users may modify it for their own use, but are prevented from creating a public fork - for example that might remove the requirement for a paid authorization key - because that would compete with the upstream's monetization.
Software developers are free to decide whether to release their code as open source, or as a non-free or commercial product. But they are not free to characterize the latter as being "open source". That kind of openwashing may be considered misleading or deceptive business practices, and is damaging to the legitimate FOSS movement. Please consider making an explicit policy for the open-source-mac-os-apps list to include only software with an approved open source license, or that are public domain, thanks.
The pull requests for the recent non-free apps:
#1007
#1008
#1009
#1010
#1011