> When a claim of "open source" is wrongly made in the interest of marketing, the expectation should be for this misrepresentation to be called for. On the oth

> When a claim of "open source" is wrongly made in the interest of marketing, the expectation should be for this misrepresentation to be called for. On the other hand, nobody has a monopoly on the “open source” concept, or even on putting the “open” qualifier in front of things. Broadly speaking, source code ranges from completely closed to completely open, and it is difficult to argue that code under a CC licence is not more open than, say, Windows’. Or indeed the usual calculator operating systems. It is like the free software flame wars all over again, this time with the OSI in place of the FSF.