Some things which both the FSF & OSI didn't include in the definition of opensource:

[alcinnz@floss.social]

Some things which both the FSF & OSI didn't include in the definition of opensource:

1. That FOSS must cost nothing.
2. That FOSS must publish our code online.

That said these are fairly natural consequences these ideals with off-the-shelf software, aiming for a broad audience.

I think its only that these are excluded from the official definitions: The Four Freedoms apply to those who run the software, which doesn't need to be everyone!

[lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me]

@alcinnz Well of course OSI wouldn't have ②, it would fail both https://wiki.debian.org/DissidentTest and https://wiki.debian.org/DesertIslandTest hard.

Open-Source Definition being derived from Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG).

[lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me]

@alcinnz Meanwhile I'd more say that publishing code online is more a social contract / cultural expectation and one more relevant to communities (where the source control system should be at least as open at said community).
And not all libre software has a community.