The open source definition is not just about being allowed to read the sourcecode of an application. It is mostly concerned with the right to change and redistribute the software.
With a software that is only “source available”, you might be able to look at the sourcecode. But you might not be allowed to:
Change the sourcecode and recompile it, in some cases not even for your personal use.
Redistribute the sourcecode or the compiled application to other people, with or without changes, under the same license conditions under which you received it.
Use the program for any purpose (Non open-source software often has long End-User License Agreements which prohibit certain ways of using the software).
It looks like the FUTO keyboard license allows all of that, the only exception is that you can’t modify it for commercial purposes. Aren’t there a lot of other OSS licenses with that same limitation? How is restricting commercial modifications bad?
Sounds good to me! I know that some people prefer free software for the public good and some are ok with commercial use for attracting corporate investment, like Linux.
What is the difference?
EDIT: from https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/15273/what-is-the-difference-between-open-source-and-source-available-software
It looks like the FUTO keyboard license allows all of that, the only exception is that you can’t modify it for commercial purposes. Aren’t there a lot of other OSS licenses with that same limitation? How is restricting commercial modifications bad?
Sounds good to me! I know that some people prefer free software for the public good and some are ok with commercial use for attracting corporate investment, like Linux.