3 ms·
> is not an open source license To be honest, this is disingenuous. "Open source" has several definitions, and even though some people would like _their_ def
by OrangeMusic 5y ago
> is not an open source license
To be honest, this is disingenuous. "Open source" has several definitions, and even though some people would like _their_ definition to be the "official" one, I'm pretty sure most reasonable people would still definitely agree that this project is open source, seeing that the entirety of the code is on GitHub.
- sneak 5y agoSource available != open source. I have the source to Windows, that doesn't make it open source. There are lots of projects with full source on GitHub that don't have a LICENSE at all, which means that despite having access to the source code you have no rights to store or use them at all (under copyright law). The definition of what counts as free software/open source was settled a long time ago. This isn't some pet crusade.