Comment by JimDabell
18 hours 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.
18 hours 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).
5 replies →
*according to the industry standard definition of Open Source
This kind of thing is how people try to shift the Overton window. No.
"I don't know anything about open source licenses hence I must spread my ignorance everywhere"
Is there some Open Source™ council I am unaware of that bequeaths the open source moniker on certain licenses?
2 replies →