Quoting my statement from the other thread: > You're appropriating the language of open source ("free and open source" is also a key phrase people will recogni

Quoting my statement from the other thread: > You're appropriating the language of open source ("free and open source" is also a key phrase people will recognize and make assumptions from) to describe software you know isn't. In order to know that this page is bullshit, you have to come here already knowing that "Apache 2.0 with Commons Clause" is not open source. The (awful) license apropriates the "Apache 2.0" name, which is a respected and well known open source license, and aporopriates the language of "Creative Commons", likewise respected and well-known to mean something entirely different from this. Someone who isn't informed about this problem could easily mistake this project for open source. You're deliberately taking advantage of this to gaslight the open source software community. > Your software is source-available. Call it that. If you're ashamed to do so then maybe you've chosen a shitty license. You know that you're lying about "open source". You've admitted as much yourself. > The authors of the Commons Clause themselves acknoweldge that it's not open source.