Take the 2-minute tour ×  You probably know the list of open
source licenses officially approved by the OSI. Most notably I
guess would be the GPL, MIT, [insert your favorite license
here].  I recently ran into a project which although was open
source (the creator made all source code available), was not
officially open source under one of those official licenses.
• It released the source, but made no promise to release the
source in the future.    • It allowed modification suggestions,
but made no promises to accept patches and disallowed external
distribution of externally-patched versions.    • It allowed the
use of the software in commercial or paid projects, but
disallowed the sale of the software itself.  I suppose it could
be called "available source" not open source as we like to think
of it.  I can see why the management team of a company wouldn't
want to do business with this software. They can't fork it, they
can't sell it, they can't create their own version of the
software and distribute it or