> Open source licenses vary, but the gist since the 1998 founding of OSI has generally been as follows: you can take this code and do what you want with it, but

> Open source licenses vary, but the gist since the 1998 founding of OSI has generally been as follows: you can take this code and do what you want with it, but you can't make the code proprietary, and if you use it in another project, then that project can't be proprietary either What? No, that's not what "open source" means. Not at all. That's "copyleft" or "viral" or "sharealike", but not a universal definition of "open source".