You even quoted it yourself: "The license shall not restrict". Public Domain code does not restrict these things (nor anything else), therefore it's perfectly compatible with Open Source licenses and Public Domain code can obviously be considered Open Source [EDIT: at least assuming that it's actually effectively Public Domain, which can be hard to determine - see commoner's reply].
Sure, you can also take some Public Domain code and stamp a non-free license on it (just like you can do with code under some [but not all] of Open Source licenses, like MIT) - which I guess may be what caused your confusion?
> Public Domain software may come with the rights delivered by those “four freedoms”, but you can’t be sure. It will depend where the software was written, where you are located, who the author is and where the people you are sharing the software with are located. A deployer or developer will need to at very least ask for advice before proceeding, and most likely will need to secure the services of a legal professional with experience in copyright law in each affected country. Even asking the author is unlikely to be conclusive. That’s why public domain software may be free software but is not certain to be.
> A solution would be to create a form of words to be used by the author to dedicate something to the public domain. It could simply disclaim ownership for the jurisdictions where that is possible, and then grant a copyright license that has the same practical effect as a public domain dedication for jurisdictions where ownership of copyright can never be disclaimed. Such a formulation has been published by the Creative Commons. They call it “CC0” and it is widely used and well respected.
https://opensource.org/node/878
However, you are right that the Open Source Definition's "Free Redistribution" clause doesn't require an open source license to be a copyleft license. The "long-term gains" rationale is an explanation for the motivation of the "Free Redistribution" clause, and is not a restriction on what open source licenses can say.
There are many open source licenses that allow "people to do literally anything they want, sell & redistribute [] code in any form they choose, make it proprietary, redistribute the code under any other license at all, and generally do anything they want for any reason including throwing away long-term gains for short-term gains", including 0BSD and MIT-0:
https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
> Edit: You replied just before I edited my comment to mention 0BSD and MIT-0. I agree that these are good alternatives to CC0.
[0] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fe...
How so? Who’s confused about what public domain means? Are you thinking of specific cases or precedent?
Assigning something to the public domain is equivalent to waiving all copyrights and license restrictions. Unlike OSI’s definition of open source, public domain comes with no agenda and no protections of any kind for the author, and no restrictions of any kind for the consumer/redistributor.
I don’t know if you’re misinterpreting my opinion on open source, but I’m in favor of Open Source restricitions, I happen to agree with OSI’s reasoning. I’m just also in favor of open language, where words are allowed to have multiple reasonable meanings, where it’s okay and a good thing if it takes time to explain subtle points, and where we don’t expect people to have to know that innocent sounding words are somebody’s slogan, and also know the complete history and special meanings behind the slogan before using it.
This is misleading in a way that contributes to misunderstanding IMO. Copyleft means specifically preserving the same license when redistributing. OSI’s license might not be copyleft per se, but it does in fact limit what the redistribution license can do, and requires the source to stay “open”. Public domain does not require the redistribution license to remain open. OSI is very clear about this, contradicting @seba_dos1’s claim that public domain is OSI open source compatible. https://opensource.org/faq#permissive
"OSI's license"? Which one? There's no requirement for the license to require the source to "stay open" for it to be called Open Source, and you have already linked to the page that confirms that.
> Public domain does not require the redistribution license to remain open.
Neither do some Open Source licenses, like MIT, which I already mentioned above. Which is even clearly stated by the page you just linked:
> Most copyleft licenses are Open Source, but not all Open Source licenses are copyleft. When an Open Source license is not copyleft, that means software released under that license can be used as part of programs distributed under other licenses, including proprietary (non-open-source) licenses. For example, the BSD license is a non-copyleft Open Source license. Such licenses are usually called either "non-copyleft" or "permissive" open source licenses
> OSI is very clear about this
It sure is, I don't know why you choose to not read what they write. Heck, you've even got links to 0BSD and MIT-0 licenses earlier, which are recognized as Open Source licenses and which you can both read in their entirety in 3 minutes and that would be enough for you to realize that you're wrong.
Please stop spreading misinformation.
It is not a condition of OSI approval for a license to require that downstream projects be reciprocally open source. You can absolutely take MIT licensed code and put it in Microsoft Windows or some closed source app, for example.
If you're unclear or have questions about something, then it's fine to say so and ask questions in the appropriate forum. What you're doing, though—which involves saying something and then waiting for someone to challenge or correct you—is harmful and contributes to even more outlandish and untrue beliefs about open source than what already exist.
To reiterate: the clauses you're quoting do not mean what you are interpreting them to mean, and claiming otherwise, especially so confidently, is actively harmful.
The OSI license is a limitation on redistribution, and in case you missed it, it clearly states “the license shall not require a royalty or other fee”. That clause is fundamentally incompatible with Public Domain. The purpose of that clause was explained in the “rationale” statement; it’s an attempt to preserve and protect the open-sourceness of open source. There is no such protection with public domain. This is exactly what @ssddandrown was talking about, it’s the whole point of the article.
> You even quoted it yourself: "The license shall not restrict".
I did quote it, I think you got confused about which license this is talking about. It’s referring to what the redistributed code’s new license is allowed to do. Public domain code can legally be redistributed under a license that does restrict what others can do with it. OSI Open Source code does not permit redistribution with a restrictive license.
There's no "the OSI license". There's a set of requirements OSI defined to classify software licenses as either Open Source or not.
> it clearly states “the license shall not require a royalty or other fee”
Exactly. To be considered Open Source, the license can not require any fee (among other things). Public Domain code (let's assume CC0 here to avoid any confusion on its legal status) does not require any fee, therefore it can be considered Open Source.
> it’s an attempt to preserve and protect the open-sourceness of open source
Yes, that's why the licenses that require the code to stay free are permitted to be called Open Source. It's very clearly not a requirement.
> OSI Open Source code does not permit redistribution with a restrictive license.
Of course it does. Please read the OSI guidelines once again, from the beginning till the end. Throw away your previously held misconceptions.
> let's assume CC0 here to avoid any confusion on its legal status) does not require any fee, therefore it can be considered Open Source.
Poor choice. CC0 is not considered open source by OSI. https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero
