3 ms·
Just say it is commons clause, not ordinary open source. I've even become convinced (based on someone digging out enough references) that the term ipen source
by skinkestek 6y ago
Just say it is commons clause, not ordinary open source.
I've even become convinced (based on someone digging out enough references) that the term ipen source was being used before OSI, but for the rest of the HN, just say "commons clause" without saying "open source" and I guess most bashing disappears.
There will always be that person annoyed that it isn't AGPL - or MIT for that matter - but for most if us we just want to know what the license actually is.
- ghaff 6y ago>I've even become convinced (based on someone digging out enough references) that the term ipen source was being used before OSI Basically at the same time. Christine Peterson seems to have coined it in 1998, the same year the OSI was founded. https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source... As far as I'm concerned, people can use whatever license they want. I just think it's borderline deceptive to claim something is an open source license even if it clearly doesn't meet the OSI (or FSF) definition.