Fresh paraphrasing of the Open Source concept is always good to see. Alas some small parts of your wording are either incorrect or misleading.
Calling code "private" is your own addition and not a concept used by either the Open Source or Free Software definitions. Instead the opposite concept is proprietary.
Thus it is the Open Source license that embeds a grant of freedom within the code. The license is therefore an enabler rather than a limiter.
Indeed, code that is publicly published but with no licence remains proprietary by copyright law.
Open Source licences are generally clear enough for programmers to read and go straight ahead and use the code in personal work. There might however be qualifications about further distribution of the code or modifications of it.
Your statement:
"Other licenses are commercial– you can only use the Open Source project if you pay for it."
is simply false as such a concept is compatible with neither definition. Perhaps you are confused by occasions of dual licensing, which is something a full copyright owner can do.
A confusion often occurs when a producer might not supply software to you unless you pay for it. But if it is Open Source then the license grants you a right to the source code to go with it. All Open Source licences grant you the freedom to redistribute it as is.
Similarly, quite a few "permissive" licenses have enough requirements for corporate lawyers to like taking a fee to clear, it doesn't only happen with copyleft ones. And neither is a problem if a derived work is remaining as Open Source.
As you've used "Open Source" with capitals (as indeed I usually do) then I recommend quoting the organisation that coined and defined that concept. opensource.org/osd
I really appreciate your sharing this—thank you very much.
We will update the white paper to include a reference to opensource.org/osd
May I ask follow up questions:
1-What term/ terms do you use to describe code that requires permission from the repository creator to gain access to that code to in a version control system?
2-What term/ terms do you use to describe code that does not requires permission from the repository creator to gain access to that code to in a version control system?
3- What term/ terms do you use to describe code that does not requires permission from the repository creator to gain access to that code to in a version control system, but does require paying for use?
We would describe #1 as “Private”, #2 as “Open Source,” and #3 as “Open Source- Commercial.” Full disclosure, our team has to explain these definitions to very non-technical audiences on occasion, so I’m sure there’s nuance missing in our summaries. Keen to hear your terminology.
Your questions are about the access to a version control system, rather than the code.
As I've already said, code becomes Open Source when an Open Source license is embedded in the code text. It retains that license as it travels. This idea, and its leverage of copyright laws predates and is independent of code versioning.
To paraphrase a little: your question is like asking whether a haiku, as a type of poem should have a different name depending on when it is written in pen or pencil. Which is that you are mistaking the tool for the content.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Fresh paraphrasing of the Open Source concept is always good to see. Alas some small parts of your wording are either incorrect or misleading.
Calling code "private" is your own addition and not a concept used by either the Open Source or Free Software definitions. Instead the opposite concept is proprietary.
Thus it is the Open Source license that embeds a grant of freedom within the code. The license is therefore an enabler rather than a limiter.
Indeed, code that is publicly published but with no licence remains proprietary by copyright law.
Open Source licences are generally clear enough for programmers to read and go straight ahead and use the code in personal work. There might however be qualifications about further distribution of the code or modifications of it.
Your statement:
is simply false as such a concept is compatible with neither definition. Perhaps you are confused by occasions of dual licensing, which is something a full copyright owner can do.
A confusion often occurs when a producer might not supply software to you unless you pay for it. But if it is Open Source then the license grants you a right to the source code to go with it. All Open Source licences grant you the freedom to redistribute it as is.
Similarly, quite a few "permissive" licenses have enough requirements for corporate lawyers to like taking a fee to clear, it doesn't only happen with copyleft ones. And neither is a problem if a derived work is remaining as Open Source.
As you've used "Open Source" with capitals (as indeed I usually do) then I recommend quoting the organisation that coined and defined that concept.
opensource.org/osd
I really appreciate your sharing this—thank you very much.
We will update the white paper to include a reference to opensource.org/osd
May I ask follow up questions:
1-What term/ terms do you use to describe code that requires permission from the repository creator to gain access to that code to in a version control system?
2-What term/ terms do you use to describe code that does not requires permission from the repository creator to gain access to that code to in a version control system?
3- What term/ terms do you use to describe code that does not requires permission from the repository creator to gain access to that code to in a version control system, but does require paying for use?
We would describe #1 as “Private”, #2 as “Open Source,” and #3 as “Open Source- Commercial.” Full disclosure, our team has to explain these definitions to very non-technical audiences on occasion, so I’m sure there’s nuance missing in our summaries. Keen to hear your terminology.
Grateful for your careful read.
Stefan
Your questions are about the access to a version control system, rather than the code.
As I've already said, code becomes Open Source when an Open Source license is embedded in the code text. It retains that license as it travels. This idea, and its leverage of copyright laws predates and is independent of code versioning.
To paraphrase a little: your question is like asking whether a haiku, as a type of poem should have a different name depending on when it is written in pen or pencil. Which is that you are mistaking the tool for the content.