2 ms·
From https://commonsclause.com https://commonsclause.com: > It [sic] this “Open Source”? > No. [also sic] > “Open source”, has a specific definition that was
by striking 8y ago
From https://commonsclause.com https://commonsclause.com:
> It [sic] this “Open Source”?
> No. [also sic]
> “Open source”, has a specific definition that was written years ago and is by the Open Source Initiative, which approves Open Source licenses. Applying the Commons Clause to an open source project will mean the source code is available, and meets many of the elements of the Open Source Definition, such as free access to source code, freedom to modify, and freedom to re-distribute, but not all of them. So to avoid confusion, it is best not to call Commons Clause software “open source.”
Additionally, "Apache 2.0 + Commons Clause" is not an Apache license. I have seen a number of people be confused by this. I hope Apache implements some guidance with regards to trademarks on this matter, mostly so I don't have to keep saying it.