Prove it! Can you give any example of a notable software project that describes itself as “open source” despite only being source-available, and not free software? Or can you find any article in a notable publication that uses the term this way?

I rather retract it. I'm all for unambiguous communication, and if the wiki doesn't even say that the meaning is disputed[0] then I'll accept it.

> Or can you find any article in a notable publication

Well the very original meaning of open source as various parties agreed on the term in April, 1998. It did not grant the right to distribute or redistribute (possibly modified) open source libraries as part of your program. Then the meaning changed shortly after it, and they switched to the Debian social contract. (As far as I could gather.)

[0] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

SQLite

https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source

No. SQLite is public domain. Public domain is free software.[1]

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PublicDomain

Troll answer. You can obviously freely modify and redistribute SQLite.

It's not obvious to me. OSI (as per link in parent comment) says it's not "open source", and the LICENSE.md contains a prohibition on using it for evil https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite/blob/master/LICENSE.md

1) OSI says that public domain and open source are not the same thing ("Here’s why it’s a mistake to treat the two terms as synonyms"), not that public domain software cannot be open source.

2) It is simply not true that the SQLite distribution terms "contain[] a prohibition on using it for evil". That is not in the text you linked.

The OSI post concludes that "an open source user or developer cannot safely include public domain source code in a project". Has SQLite done something that makes it an exception to this?

I will concede that the exhortation against use for evil in the license text is probably not legally binding.

The OSI has approved a public domain dedication, so clearly they accept public domain software as OSD-compliant:

https://opensource.org/license/unlicense

An advisory blog post warning people not to assume that "public domain" code is actually unencumbered is not the same as saying that actually public domain code is not open source.

The OSI approval of the Unlicense notes:

> It is an attempt to dedicate a work to the public domain (which, taken alone, would not be approved as an open source license) but it also has wording commonly used for license grants.

https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists....

It's clear OSI considers this extra wording, above and beyond the public domain declaration, to be what qualifies it as truly unencumbered. SQLite's license does not contain similar language, and has not been similarly qualified by the OSI.

Regardless of their dumb nonsensical rejection of public domain, you did the opposite of what was asked. I was asking for examples of open-source software that is not free in the Free Software sense, and you gave an example of something that is too free for the OSI.

> the LICENSE.md contains a prohibition on using it for evil

No it doesn’t and now I feel like you’re trying to waste my time on purpose. It contains a “blessing” exhorting (i.e., requesting) people not to do evil, not a “prohibition” of any kind.

What popular source-available, non-OSD software is commonly referred to as "open source"?

Which elements of the Open Source Definition does SQLite fail to meet?

The prohibition on using it for evil[1] violates guidelines #5 and #6. And more generally, OSI argues[2] that "public domain" != "open source".

[1]: https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite/blob/master/LICENSE.md [2]: https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source

Both of these sources contradict your somewhat bizarre thesis that sqlite, one of the most commonly used free software in the world, somehow is not open source.

I think you misunderstand my thesis. SQLite is open source, despite the fact that it fails to meet OSI's somewhat bizarre definition of "open source".

It doesn't fail to meet the OSI's definition of open source. As you elsewhere conceded, the "blessing" in the SQLite source doesn't have legal weight and doesn't violate the OSD. Public domain software has always been considered open source. For instance, the Debian project, famous for their exacting standards for free software, accepts public domain software:

https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Public_Domain

As they mention here, it is theoretically possible that code dedicated to the public domain might still be encumbered in a way that makes it not open source: "we are unaware of a case where a jurisdiction has upheld a copyright claim to a work which has been dedicated to the public domain everywhere".

You are using your own definitions of the term and you will find that no one else agrees with that.

This is a silly game and there is nothing to be gained from playing it, for anyone.