Statamic describes itself as open source while its not

[Simple-Minute]

Hi,
according to this Reddit post Statamic describes itself as open source, but it's actual licence is not open source.
https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/1f1xhon/is_statamic_open_source/

I think this really doesnt look good and looks like false advertising.
Statamic should either remove all instances where it calls itself "open source" and use instead correct term "source available" or it would need to change it's licence to be actually open source.

But currently it sadly calls itself falsely open source even if it's not.
I think this is just honest mistake that can be easily corrected.

Thanks.

[jackmcdade]

Open Source does not mean it needs to be free or use any one specific license. People always debate the definition, but ultimately open source means the source is open and avaialble and you're allowed to modify and release what you use it for according its the license.

https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/k7kj4m/can_something_paid_be_called_open_source/

[Simple-Minute]

@JonKaric When you mentioned "hijacking" the term it made me wonder what is even history of the term. Luckily there is nice summary on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#Open_source_as_a_term
Also here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition

And from reading this is looks like founders of Open Source Initiative actually co-created and popularized the term "open source". So they definitely didnt "hijack" it as you say. They were one of the original authors and were responsible for establishing meaning behind it. So what Open Source Initiative says "open source" means is by definition what it means.

[ssddanbrown]

More importantly in my opinion, there have been decades of people reinforcing that original definition by sharing work that adheres to that definition under the label of open source. It's that, and the OSI's stewardship, that have helped to establish it was a ubiquitous term. Work shared as open source while not providing those freedoms works to erode that, which is why folks like me are interested and put effort to push back against such use.

With any shorter term representing a larger cause, there may be some effort to understand the meaning beyond assumptions. "Free speech" is a good equivalent, with many misunderstand the actual meaning & movements behind that term based on their assumption (thinking it means they're free to say anything at any time without consequences), but the term to its proper meaning, and the fights/groups/causes/history behind it, are still important.

[JonKaric]

I think it's a term that clearly causes confusion, we've seen it all over this post. The OP concluded they can do anything with Statamic because it's labled as open source.

Seems like the term you're pushing is causing people to assume you can do absolutely anything with what you call open source software, and completely ignore licences which are the single source of truth for what you can do with the software.

Eg, one of the OSI approved* licences includes:

You may modify your copy or copies of NetHack or any portion of it, and copy and distribute such modifications under the terms of Paragraph 1 above (including distributing this License Agreement), provided that you also do the following: a) cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change; ...

You may not copy, sublicense, distribute or transfer NetHack except as expressly provided under this License Agreement.

Do you think people who just take your term at face value are gonna listen to this licence? I wouldn't think so. They will hear that you can "freely fork it, rename it and distribute or sell it myself?" and do what they want with it.

[ssddanbrown]

The OP concluded they can do anything with Statamic because it's labled as open source.

I didn't see them state they expect to be able to do anything.

Seems like the term you're pushing is causing people to assume you can do absolutely anything with what you call open source software

I don't see why. Open source provides open use, modification & distribution but nowhere is it said this allows "absolutely anything". It comes back to the OSD which sets good rules as to what would be considered open source.

Do you think people who just take your term at face value are gonna listen to this licence?

No, but we're specifically providing input to ask for "open source" to be considered to an existing established definition, not face value.

They will hear that you can "freely fork it, rename it and distribute or sell it myself?"

They can totally do all that using that license example provided, as long as you also follow the requirements of the license.

[Simple-Minute]

Just for the record what I meant. I know there are basically two groups of open source licenses. Permissible like BSD or MIT where I can do almost anything. I can for example put it into proprietary project where nobody can get the source code. But I cant change the licence of the original code and I have to keep licence notice file or other such things. And then there is GPL group where I am forced to allow others the same freedoms it granted me, so no closing and I have to make source code available.
I know even every open source licence is kinda specific and different but the basics should be the same.

And because of those basics I expected I can take any open source code and "freely fork it, rename it and distribute or sell it myself".
When I read the mentioned NetHack licence it seems it would allow me exactly what I described. It allows me to fork it, modify it, and sell it. I just need to also give source code to anyone I sell it to with the same licence.

So that's why I was confused. When I read something is "open source" I expect it's licence should be at least basically similar to other open source licenses.

[jackmcdade]

I don’t want this kind of confusion or arguments to be an ongoing thing. I’ll update our verbiage when I get a chance to make it more clear.

[viktorix]

Was trying to learn more about Statamic and was looking at the license.

Open Source does not mean it needs to be free or use any one specific license.

While it doesn't have to be free, if you want open source community to consider Statamic open source you should use a license that complies with Open Source Definition from OSI. List of licenses is here:
https://opensource.org/licenses

As I see it now, Statamic is source available and not open source. Just like Sentry, Redis, Terraform, etc.

There's nothing wrong with that, but it's important to use the correct language and not try to open wash it.

[jackmcdade]

I would say we most closely resemble the Open Core model, which is also argued whether it's truly open source or not. 🤔

[ssddanbrown]

Not really IMO, open core is where there's a core open source offering, with an alternative offering based on that core that has proprietary (non-open-source) additions/parts. Statamic is not open source at all and does not fit here. Source available fits.

[JonKaric]

@ssddanbrown Is there any wording that would be acceptable, that isn't Source available? I'm releasing something similar in licence to statamic soon, but don't want to use it as it implies that it's just available and nothing more. At least to me?

[ssddanbrown]

@JonKaric There's not too many other well established terms. Here's a few others within that range, although they are backed with definitions, so I can't validate if your software would fit them without knowing your license:

• Fair source - Lead by Sentry
• Source first - Lead by Futo
• Fair code - Lead by n8n

[ssddanbrown]

Just an update that the project is still marketing itself as open source.
I've noted references to mentions on my site here: https://isitreallyfoss.com/projects/statamic/

[dannyuk1982]

Does Statamic claim to be FOSS?

[ssddanbrown]

It claims to be open source, as per my referenced link:

The project advertises itself as open source in many locations, including in their GitHub profile, on their website, and in their licensing documentation.

A couple of those mentions do specifically reference it as Free and Open Source.

[Amarjit]

They probably still call it “open source” because it gives the project a positive image and shows it’s transparent and accessible.

[vitalijalbu]

hope it will be one day... 😆

[Simple-Minute]

Honestly, writing on licence page that "Statamic Core is free and open source and can be used for anything you wish" really sounds like giving right to use, share, modify, and distribute the software as per definition of FOSS.
I just imagine the situation.

Someone forks, modifies and distributes this Statamic repo, which contains Statamic Core as written "This repository contains the code for the core Statamic Composer package"

Then Statamic authors sue the dev behind the fork and the dev defends themselves like "Well, Statamic literally told me the core is free and open source and that I can use it for anything I wish. They gave me permission.

[jackmcdade]

A docs page and the actual Terms included in the project are different, but point taken regardless. I’ve tweaked the verbiage there. On Mar 28, 2026, at 10:38 AM, Simple-Minute ***@***.***> wrote: Honestly, writing on licence page that "Statamic Core is free and open source and can be used for anything you wish" really sounds like giving right to use, share, modify, and distribute the software as per definition of FOSS. I just imagine the situation. Someone forks, modifies and distributes this Statamic repo, which contains Statamic Core as written "This repository contains the code for the core Statamic Composer package" Then Statamic authors sue the dev behind the fork and the dev defends themselves like "Well, Statamic literally told me the core is free and open source and that I can use for anything I wish. They gave me permission. —Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>