Comment by kouteiheika

No, I'm just arguing against the blatant double standard I frequently see here on HN.

Personally I agree with you; to me this isn't open source in spirit. But I also think that a modified MIT license with an anti-megacorporation use restriction is still open source in spirit, regardless of what the Open Source Definition says.

Why is the "this is not open source even though it's OSI approved" comment here the most upvoted, while I frequently see the "this is open source even though it's not OSI approved" opinions heavily argued against and downvoted to hell?

My point is: either pick one or the other. Either the OSI is the authority on what is open source, or not. You can't have it both ways and argue either way depending on whether it's convenient to you. (And by "you" I don't mean you specifically, but people here in general.)