Comment by kouteiheika

> This is NOT open source.

So in the end are we going by the OSI's definition of Open Source, or not? Can we make up our mind please?

Every time anyone posts here even a slightly modified Open Source license (e.g. a MIT license with an extra restriction that prevents megacorporations from using it but doesn't affect anyone else) people come out of the woodwork with their pitchforks screaming "this is not Open Source!", and insist that the Open Source Definition decides what is Open Source or not, and not to call anything which doesn't meet that definition "Open Source".

And yet here we are with a repository licensed under an actually Open Source license, and suddenly this is the most upvoted comment, and now people don't actually care about the Open Source Definition after all?

Either we go by the OSI's definition, in which case this is open source, regardless of what you think the motivations are for opening up this code, or we go by the "vibes" of whether it feels open source, in which case a modified MIT license which prohibits companies with a trillion+ market cap from using it is also open source.