It's clearly open source. What you mean to say is that it's not Free Software. Don't get me wrong I'm an ally of open source, but the very notion that open sour

It's clearly open source. What you mean to say is that it's not Free Software. Don't get me wrong I'm an ally of open source, but the very notion that open source or free software are somehow protected words is funny by itself. Someone created a decent app, posted the source for it and allows you to play around with it. Be grateful, or ignore it, or bash it for technical reasons, but this "I don't actually care about the software I just came to say it's not really open source", because that one mention in the readme is odd to me. I'm kind of assuming it might turn open core at some point in the future, but for now it's not. Edit: I'm fully aware that the comment is controversial and not happily received by the HN community, but contrary to popular belief the open source initiative has no copyright claim to the words open source, merely to the open source initiative phrase. No downvotes will change that. But even if you use the phrases by opensource.com: The term "open source" refers to something people can modify - fork and share - pull request because its design is publicly accessible. I fully get why someone would dislike the strict way he defined his license terms, but it's still in accordance with modify and share. "If you move beyond modifying the code and decide to distribute your modified version (or the original), that is the point at which there may be compliance issues with the open source license. You only need to check you are passing on the same rights to others as you received with the original code. " You can distribute it just fine using the pull-requests. Again, it's fine to be against this, but "you're not allowing me to distribute it the way i want therefore it can't be open source" is a moot point. I'm not argueing for his license, but I'm against the senseless bashing of licenses I disagree with.