Comment by JimDabell
2 months ago
They are claiming something is open-source when it isn’t. Regardless of whether you think the deviation from open-source is a good thing or not, you should still be in favour of honesty.
2 months ago
They are claiming something is open-source when it isn’t. Regardless of whether you think the deviation from open-source is a good thing or not, you should still be in favour of honesty.
*according to your definition of open-source
No, according to the commonly accepted definition of open-source.
Whenever anybody tries to claim that a non-commercial licenses is open-source, it always gets complaints that it is not open-source. This particular word hasn’t been watered down by misuse like so many others.
There is no commonly-accepted definition of open-source that allows commercial restrictions. You do not get to make up your own meaning for words that differs from how other people use it. Open-source does not have commercial restrictions by definition.
Where are you getting this compendium of commonly-accepted definitions?
Looking up open-source in the dictionary does include definitions that would allow for commercial restrictions, depending on how you define "free" (a matter that is most certainly up for debate).
8 replies →
*according to the industry standard definition of Open Source
This kind of thing is how people try to shift the Overton window. No.
[flagged]
Is there some Open Source™ council I am unaware of that bequeaths the open source moniker on certain licenses?
2 replies →