I suppose this is quite relevant here: https://words.steveklabnik.com/the-culture-war-at-the-heart-of-open-source https://words.steveklabnik.com/the-culture-war

I suppose this is quite relevant here: https://words.steveklabnik.com/the-culture-war-at-the-heart-of-open-source https://words.steveklabnik.com/the-culture-war-at-the-heart-... > However this also allows authors to reserve rights for commercializing their work later on and it's an absolutely fair arrangement. They could've also used AGPL for that. A popular option. The license says, "For purposes of this license, commercial purposes is the incorporation of the Allen Institute's software into anything for which you will charge fees or other compensation." Does that include ads? It certainly seems to include donations. And I suppose requiring attribution could be seen as "other compensation". It's kinda broad, but even if it was strictly "don't sell this standalone", it still wouldn't be FOSS or open source imo. It's fine for studying the code, but it's not any better than "source available" software, such as UE4. And if do study the code, you'll have the same legal landmines to deal with as when studying "source available" code. I'd even say that UE4's license is better, because at least it doesn't cause confusion over whether it's open source. > No reason to denigrate their work because of that. I don't think anyone did. They just said it's not open source, which seems like a fair assessment to me. Saying that Windows isn't open source doesn't denigrate Microsoft's work either. Open source doesn't mean good, and proprietary doesn't mean bad. This volume-viewer just isn't open source, regardless of its quality.