> because it's not open-source and is therefore proprietary For reasons I point out in the post, I consider that implication harmful. The third way referred t

> because it's not open-source and is therefore proprietary For reasons I point out in the post, I consider that implication harmful. The third way referred to in the post is source-available software. Others may or may not include software under stronger-than-strong copyleft or reciprocal licenses, like my Parity or OSI-approved RPL, in that category.