I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it was phrased as precisely as it could have been. I agree that Wolfram is criticizing community-based softwa

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it was phrased as precisely as it could have been. I agree that Wolfram is criticizing community-based software development, and using that reasoning to incompletely justify its decision to not release its source code. Wolfram could have made their software source-available without making it open source, and their page doesn't directly address this middle ground. As others have said, #1 is not really necessary since no open source project needs to accept contributions from anyone. #2, on the other hand, is absolutely necessary because open source software must allow users the freedom to copy, modify, and use the code as they wish. > (if perhaps only non-commercial ends.) However, software under licenses that forbid users from using the code for certain purposes (including commercial purposes) are not open source. Both the OSI[1] and the FSF[2] object to this type of restriction. Allowing arbitrary restrictions on use would raise the question of the types of discrimination that should be allowed in FOSS licenses, which is something many in the free and open source software community prefer not to deal with. [1] https://opensource.org/osd#fields-of-endeavor https://opensource.org/osd#fields-of-endeavor: The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#selling https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#selling: “Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution.