No, it's not. If you're selling broccoli but you call it "peaches", taking a poll will not change peaches to broccoli. Open Source has a very precise, clear,

No, it's not. If you're selling broccoli but you call it "peaches", taking a poll will not change peaches to broccoli. Open Source has a very precise, clear, and widely-agreed-on definition. That definition is published at https://opensource.org/definition https://opensource.org/definition. Free Software is equally agreed-on and equally clearly defined: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en Millions of developers and thousands of companies, governments, and other organizations agree on these definitions and have been using them consistently for decades now. You can't make non-open-source software magically become open source by just calling it "open source". All you do is damage a widely-used term that people depend on (for example, my time was wasted when I clicked on a link to your project because the link said the destination was "open source" -- if it had been accurately labeled, then my time would not have been wasted!) Please stop damaging the language and wasting people's time. Your license is not open source; therefore do not call it that.