Games using UE wouldn't work without desktop client so it's easy to licence it.

A lot of business code can just as well run on server, and that works around basicall all the open source licences.

Except AGPL if I'm not mistaken ? So combine both I guess ?

Unreal isn't open source

What the parent is asking for is inherently not open source.

For a moment I disagreed with this, so I'll add a link to the OSD [0] for anyone else who wants to quibble.

Also a choice quote about Stallman [1]:

"Richard Stallman argues the obvious meaning of term "open source" is that the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted"

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

Thanks, that led me to this intriguing origin story from Christine Peterson, involving some advanced people skills: (my italics)

"Between meetings that week, I was still focused on the need for a better name and came up with the term "open source software." While not ideal, it struck me as good enough. I ran it by at least four others: Eric Drexler, Mark Miller, and Todd Anderson liked it, while a friend in marketing and public relations felt the term "open" had been overused and abused and believed we could do better. He was right in theory; however, I didn't have a better idea... Later that week, on February 5, 1998, a group was assembled at VA Research to brainstorm on strategy. Attending – in addition to Eric Raymond, Todd, and me – were Larry Augustin, Sam Ockman, and attending by phone, Jon "maddog" Hall... Todd was on the ball. Instead of making an assertion that the community should use this specific new term, he did something less directive – a smart thing to do with this community of strong-willed individuals. He simply used the term in a sentence on another topic – just dropped it into the conversation to see what happened.... A few minutes later, one of the others used the term, evidently without noticing, still discussing a topic other than terminology. Todd and I looked at each other out of the corners of our eyes to check: yes, we had both noticed what happened... "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Peterson

Stallman is about Free/Libre Software.

Eric S. Raymond is about Open Source.

There are somewhat subtle, but very important differences between their philosophies.

And not even all Free Software is the same.

Eg the Linux kernel deliberately uses GPL 2, and that community has rejected GPL 3.

it may not be free software, but it is open source

The term of art is "source available" - "open source" means something different.

As far as I am aware, a usual term of art is also "shared source" (this term was in particular used by Microsoft in the past).

My understanding was "shared source" was MS's particular license for "source available" not their term for the practice.

"Shared source" was an umbrella term by Microsoft for its licenses that allows access to the source code. Among these licenses were ones that were also open-source licenses, but also ones that were not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shared_Source_Ini... lists the following licenses:

- Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) [open source]

- Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL) [open source]

- Microsoft Limited Public License (Ms-LPL) [not open source]

- Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL) [not open source]

- Microsoft Reference Source License (Ms-RSL) [not open source]

So, "shared source" was clearly not a particular license by MS.

Also, at that time, Microsoft tried to establish this term (by its Shared Source Initiative) for the general concept of "source code is available, but the license is not necessarily open source".

In the linked Wikipedia article, one can read on this:

"However, former OSI president Michael Tiemann considers the phrase 'Shared Source' itself to be a marketing term created by Microsoft. He argues that it is 'an insurgent term that distracts and dilutes the Open Source message by using similar-sounding terms and offering similar-sounding promises'."

That's not a term of art, it's someone's opinion. "Open source" means whatever I say it does, whatever you say it does, whatever Apple says it does, whatever ESR says it does, and whatever RMS says it does.

No, the OSI has precedence: https://opensource.org/history

No, it doesn't. Just saying something doesn't make it so. Trying to enforce a trademark on "Open Source" as a development methodology would be good for a few laughs in a courtroom, but that's it.

Sorry, can you define each word you've used in your post?

I don't understand what you're asking, can you elaborate?

Edit: I guess you're asking about 'ESR' and 'RMS.' ESR = Eric Raymond, an early proponent of open source as a communal development model ( http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html ). RMS is Richard Stallman, the originator of the GNU project on which the Linux kernel is based, as well as the GPL. RMS disagrees with ESR, in that he argues that the term "open source" is a distraction from the larger goal of free software ( https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....) .

There have been plenty of other authors with strong opinions on the subject but these are the two whose names most often come up in the context. Point being, it is unreasonable to say that "open source" is a term of art (as the GP did) whose meaning will be agreed upon by practitioners and advocates everywhere.

No, the question was supposed to illustrate that if you have that approach to language, then communication is impossible. There needs to be a shared notion of what certain words and concepts mean. You claimed that they mean whatever some person claims them to mean. So the question to you was what do your words mean, since with that entirely freewheeling approach to language, nobody here can know what you meant.

So, in a nutshell: https://xkcd.com/1860/

My claim was a response to an assertion which has now been edited, so... meh. You win teh Internets.

> My claim was a response to an assertion which has now been edited, so...

This is certainly something I sometimes do, but not here. What are you talking about?

Weirdly, at one point, your reply no longer seemed to contain the phrase "term of art." It's back now; I must have been mistaken about the initial change, since you'd have had to edit it well after the expiration period.

In any case, "open source" isn't a term of art. It did not originate with ESR or with anyone else in the software development field, so it means whatever anyone wants it to mean.

No, not according to the Open Source Definition of the OSI, which is generally recognized to be the authority in terms of what we call "open source".

> No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition