请输入您要查询的百科知识：

　

词条 Source-available software
释义

  1. Distinction from free and open-source software

  2. Free and open-source licenses

  3. Proprietary licenses

      Commons Clause    {{anchor|GitLab Enterprise Edition License}} GitLab Enterprise Edition License (EE License)    Mega Limited Code Review Licence    Microsoft Shared Source Initiative    Scilab License    SugarCRM Public License    TrueCrypt License  

  4. See also

  5. References

{{short description|software licensed to ensure access to source code}}{{primarysources|date=July 2011}}

Source-available software is software released through a source code distribution model that includes arrangements where the source can be viewed, and in some cases modified, but without necessarily meeting the criteria to be called open-source.[1] The licenses associated with the offerings range from allowing code to be viewed for reference, to allowing code to be modified and redistributed for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.{{cn|date=July 2018}}

Distinction from free and open-source software

Any software is source available software as long its source code is distributed along with it, even if the user has no legal rights to use, share, modify or even compile it. It is possible for a software to be both source available software and proprietary software.{{cn|date=July 2018}}

In contrast, the definitions of free software and open-source software are much narrower. Free software and/or open-source software is also always source available software, but not all source available software is also free software and/or open-source software. This is because the official definitions of those terms require the software to have their source code available in some form.{{cn|date=July 2018}}

Free and open-source licenses

{{Main|Comparison of free and open-source software licenses}}

Free software licenses and open-source software licenses are also source-available software licenses, as they both require the source code of the software to be made available.

Proprietary licenses

The following source-available software licenses are proprietary licenses, because they have limitations that prevent them from being open-source according to the Open Source Initiative and free to the Free Software Foundation.

Commons Clause

The Commons Clause, created by Fossa, Inc., is an addendum to an open-source software license that restricts users from selling the software. Under the combined license, the software is source-available, but not open-source.[2]

On August 22, 2018, Redis Labs shifted some Redis Modules from the Affero General Public License[3][4] to a combination of the Apache License 2.0 and the Commons Clause.[5][6]

{{anchor|GitLab Enterprise Edition License}} GitLab Enterprise Edition License (EE License)

The GitLab Enterprise Edition License is used exclusively by GitLab's commercial offering.[7] GitLab also releases a Community Edition under the MIT License.[8]

GitLab Inc. openly discloses that the EE License makes their Enterprise Edition product "proprietary, closed source code."[9] However, the company makes the source code of the Enterprise Edition public, as well as the repository's issue tracker, and allows users to modify the source code.[10] The dual release of the closed-source Enterprise Edition and the open-source Community Edition makes GitLab an open core company.

Mega Limited Code Review Licence

{{further|Mega (service)#History}}

In 2016, Mega Ltd. released the source code of their Mega clients under the Mega Limited Code Review Licence, which only permits usage of the code "for the purposes of review and commentary".[11] The source code was released after former director Kim Dotcom stated that he would "create a Mega competitor that is completely open source and non-profit" following his departure from Mega Ltd..[12][13]

Microsoft Shared Source Initiative

{{further|Shared Source Initiative#Restricted licenses}}

Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative, launched in May 2001, comprises 5 licenses, 2 of which are open-source and 3 of which are restricted. The restricted licenses under this scheme are the Microsoft Limited Public License (Ms-LPL),[14] the Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL),[15] and the Microsoft Reference Source License (Ms-RSL).[16]

Scilab License

{{further|Scilab#License}}

Prior to version 5, Scilab described itself as "the open source platform for numerical computation"[17] but had a license[18] that forbade commercial redistribution of modified versions.

SugarCRM Public License

{{further|SugarCRM#License}}

In 2007 Michael Tiemann, president of OSI, had criticized[19] companies such as SugarCRM for promoting their software as "open source" when in fact it did not have an OSI-approved license. In SugarCRM's case, it was because the software is so-called "badgeware"[20] since it specified a "badge" that must be displayed in the user interface (SugarCRM has since switched to GPLv3).[21]

TrueCrypt License

{{further|TrueCrypt#License and source model}}

The TrueCrypt License was used by the TrueCrypt disk encryption utility.[22] When TrueCrypt was discontinued, the VeraCrypt fork switched to the Apache License, but retained the TrueCrypt License for code inherited from TrueCrypt.[23]

The Open Source Initiative rejects the TrueCrypt License, as "it has elements incompatible with the OSD."[24] The Free Software Foundation criticizes the license for restricting who can execute the program, and for enforcing a trademark condition.[25]

See also

{{Portal|Free and open-source software}}{{div col}}
  • Comparison of free and open-source software licenses
  • Free software
  • Free software license
  • List of commercial video games with available source code
  • List of proprietary source-available software
  • List of source-available video games
  • Open-core model
  • Open-source license
  • Open-source software
  • Shared Source Initiative{{div col end}}

References

1. ^{{cite web|url=https://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-Source-Software-FAQ/|title=DoD Open Source Software (OSS) FAQ|website=Chief Information Officer|publisher=U.S. Department of Defense|accessdate=23 Jul 2018}}
2. ^{{cite web|accessdate=2018-08-24|title=Commons Clause License|url=https://commonsclause.com/|website=Commons Clause License}}
3. ^{{cite news|accessdate=2018-08-24|title=Why Redis Labs' Modules are AGPL |website=Redis Labs|url=https://redislabs.com/blog/why-redis-labs-modules-are-agpl/|date=5 July 2016|last=Shoolman|first=Yiftach}}
4. ^{{cite news|accessdate=2018-08-24|title=Redis has a license to kill: Open-source database maker takes some code proprietary|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/08/23/redis_database_license_change/|website=The Register|last=Claburn|first=Thomas}}
5. ^{{cite web|accessdate=2018-08-24|title=Commons Clause License|url=https://commonsclause.com/|website=Commons Clause License}}
6. ^{{cite news|accessdate=2018-08-24|title=Why Redis Labs made a huge mistake when it changed its open source licensing strategy|url=https://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-redis-labs-made-a-huge-mistake-when-it-changed-its-open-source-licensing-strategy/|newspaper=TechRepublic|last=Asay|first=Matt}}
7. ^{{cite web|url=https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE|title=The GitLab Enterprise Edition (EE) license (the “EE License”)|website=GitLab|publisher=GitLab Inc.|date=16 May 2018|accessdate=23 Jul 2018}}
8. ^{{cite web|url=https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/LICENSE|title=GitLab Community Edition LICENSE file|website=GitLab|publisher=GitLab Inc.|date=15 May 2018|accessdate=23 Jul 2018}}
9. ^{{cite web|url=https://about.gitlab.com/2016/07/20/gitlab-is-open-core-github-is-closed-source/|title=GitLab is open core, GitHub is closed source|last=Sijbrandij|first=Sid|website=GitLab|publisher=GitLab Inc.|date=20 Jul 2016|accessdate=23 Jul 2018}}
10. ^{{cite web|url=https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce|title=GitLab Community Edition|publisher=GitLab Inc.|accessdate=23 Jul 2018}}
11. ^{{cite web|accessdate=2018-08-24|date=2017-09-07|title=meganz/MEGAsync|url=https://github.com/meganz/MEGAsync/blob/master/LICENCE.md|website=GitHub}}
12. ^{{cite web|accessdate=2018-08-24|date=2015-07-30|title=Interviews: Kim Dotcom Answers Your Questions - Slashdot|url=https://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/07/27/200204/interviews-kim-dotcom-answers-your-questions|website=yro.slashdot.org}}
13. ^{{cite news|accessdate=2018-08-24|date=2015-07-31|title=Kim Dotcom promises to launch an open-source competitor to Mega (updated)|url=https://www.engadget.com/2015/07/31/kim-dotcom-new-site-mega/|newspaper=Engadget}}
14. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/limitedpubliclicense.mspx|title=Microsoft Limited Public License (Ms-LPL)}}
15. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/limitedreciprocallicense.mspx|title=Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL)}}
16. ^{{cite web| url=http://referencesource.microsoft.com/license.html| title=Microsoft Reference Source License| publisher=Microsoft| date=2016-07-06| quote="Reference use" means use of the software within your company as a reference, in read only form, for the sole purposes of debugging your products, maintaining your products, or enhancing the interoperability of your products with the software, and specifically excludes the right to distribute the software outside of your company.| accessdate=2016-07-06}}
17. ^{{cite web | url=http://www.scilab.org | title=The open source platform for numerical computation | publisher=INRIA | accessdate=2008-01-04 }}
18. ^{{cite web | url=http://www.scilab.org/legal/license.html | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051212214843/http://www.scilab.org/legal/license.html | dead-url=yes | archive-date=2005-12-12 | title=SCILAB License | publisher=INRIA | accessdate=2008-01-04 }}
19. ^{{cite web | url=http://www.opensource.org/node/163 | title=Will The Real Open Source CRM Please Stand Up? | first=Michael | last=Tiemann | authorlink=Michael Tiemann | date=2007-06-21 | publisher=Open Source Initiative | accessdate=2008-01-04}}
20. ^{{cite web | url=http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=3430 | date=2006-11-21 | title=Are SugarCRM, Socialtext, Zimbra, Scalix and others abusing the term "open source?" | first=David | last=Berlind | publisher=ZDNet | accessdate=2008-01-04 | deadurl=yes | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080101010337/http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=3430 | archivedate=1 January 2008 | df=dmy-all }}
21. ^{{cite news | last=Vance | first=Ashlee | authorlink=Ashlee Vance | date=2007-07-25 | title=SugarCRM trades badgeware for GPL 3 | publisher=The Register | url=http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/07/25/sugarcrm_gpl3/ | accessdate=2008-09-08}}
22. ^{{cite web|url=https://github.com/DrWhax/truecrypt-archive/blob/master/doc/License-v3.1.txt|title=truecrypt-archive/License-v3.1.txt at master · DrWhax/truecrypt-archive|website=GitHub|date=28 Mar 2014|accessdate=23 Jul 2018}}
23. ^{{cite web|url=https://www.veracrypt.fr/code/VeraCrypt/tree/License.txt?h=VeraCrypt_1.19|title=root/License.txt|website=VeraCrypt|publisher=TrueCrypt Foundation|date=17 Oct 2016|accessdate=23 Jul 2018}}
24. ^{{Citation | last =Phipps | first =Simon | author-link =Simon Phipps (programmer) | title =TrueCrypt or false? Would-be open source project must clean up its act | publisher =InfoWorld | date =15 November 2013 | url = http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/truecrypt-or-false-would-be-open-source-project-must-clean-its-act-230862 | accessdate = 20 May 2014}}
25. ^{{cite web|url=https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html|title=Various Licenses and Comments about Them|website=GNU Operating System|publisher=Free Software Foundation|accessdate=23 Jul 2018}}
{{Software distribution}}{{FOSS}}{{DEFAULTSORT:Source-available software}}

1 : Software licenses
随便看

　

开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。

　

Copyright © 2023 OENC.NET All Rights Reserved
京ICP备2021023879号 更新时间：2024/9/21 0:49:57