Im working on a project for some software I want in the world. But I'm such a hobbyist that I've never thought of publishing any of my projects, but after doing so much work in it I kind of want other to have access to it after I feel its ready.
Whats the process of distribution?
I guess I typically use github when interacting with FOSS community, but its still confusing for me to navigate as an end user sometimes, let alone being an uploader.
FWIW its simply a few python modules and other supporting txt and jsons. Targeting mostly Windows because that's what I use.
Thanks!
(If this isn't the right place to ask please let me know!)
Edit: there are a bunch of great comments here! To clarify, I want to get it functional and somewhat bug free then fully upload everything so someone can see my idea and do it better. So I think I'm going to go with unlicense, because I don't really care about getting credit or getting contributions necessarily. Thanks all!
Open source software literally means that the source code is available to anyone. In GitHub, that just means that your repo is public rather than private. But your method technically doesn’t matter. You could publish to a forum if you wish. That’s still open source!
Free OSS just means that anyone is free to use and modify the source code for any purpose. The details are usually defined in a LICENSE file.
I feel like you’re really asking about the common practices and methods used in FOSS. Right? If so, that’s entirely up to you as the maintainer. As the project matures, you may attract other contributors which will in turn will motivate change to your tools and methods.
Start with what works for you. Model after similar projects if you wish. Adjust as change is needed.
Open source software literally means that the source code is available to anyone. In GitHub, that just means that your repo is public rather than private.
You can make publicly available any code that is fully under copyright. The reader cannot compile, modify, or redistribute it. It's called "source available".
Open Source has a specific definition that has been tested in court, which means that you are able to make modifications, transform, etc. within the confines of the license that is provided with the code.
There are two types of "free": free as in gratis (free beer) vs free as in libre (free speech). The OSS licenses very clearly dictate by which means that you are free.
If you find a piece of code in a forum without any license text, and you use it in your software, you could be in a lot of trouble, and not just because the code might be bad. Code without a license is NOT open source, nor public domain, nor free to use, https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/1721. It needs to have a license that explicitly allows use, modification, redistribution, only then it is open source. You may have seen some "openwashing", someone trying to redefine the term to make them look good
Open source software literally means that the source code is available to anyone. In GitHub, that just means that your repo is public rather than private. But your method technically doesn’t matter. You could publish to a forum if you wish. That’s still open source!
That's debatable. Open Source is not defined being publicly available, that would be just Source Available, you can look at it. Being Open Source is defined by its license. If no one has the right to make changes to the software, then its not Open Source. The definition you gave is your definition (and probably by many other). At the same time, there are other definitions too and who says one of them is the only correct one?
Without a license permitting the usage of the Source Code, its not open, its closed source (closed to edit and use). I know its debatable, I said it already, but that's the reason why we (or I) debate. In example, a software that is Open Source does not need to publish it publicly. It just needs to open it for the people who in example purchase the software. If nobody publishes the code to the internet in the public, it is still Open Source to the people who use it; not closed source anymore (if the license is playing nice).