> Saying "that's not open source" is just like a chocolate snob telling their friend that their Hershey's bar is "totally not real chocolate" I don't think thi

> Saying "that's not open source" is just like a chocolate snob telling their friend that their Hershey's bar is "totally not real chocolate" I don't think this is a great comparison. Open source has a particular, commonly understood meaning, just like chocolate does. When I say "this is not an open source license", I am not saying that it doesn't meet some kind of quality standard, or that I just don't like it. I am saying that it is a deceptive label that contradicts the common understanding of the term. If an author would like to relicense their open source project to exclude certain groups of users, why must they insist on using the open source label? They ought to be proud that they reject open source norms. Why would they want to associate themselves with projects allow dictatorships to use them? I have written software with a license that allows for noncommercial use only. I label it as freeware (which clearly communicates "you need to check the license"). I have no desire to label it as open source, because I do not wish to mislead people who have a coherent and widely accepted mental model of what that entails. I am generally suspicious of the motivations of people who would want to muddy the waters with unclear labeling. There is a perfectly honest way to address this, as esr did: invent a different term. If you can come up with a short, snappy term for "source-available software that allows for open-source-like use for certain classes of people", then use that, and don't lie to your users.