2 ms·

> Right, it's open source with a license that forbids using it for evil. That's not considered open source, though. https://opensource.org/osd-annotated http

by schoen 4y ago

> Right, it's open source with a license that forbids using it for evil. That's not considered open source, though. https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated Also compare https://web.archive.org/web/20130203112329/http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502 https://web.archive.org/web/20130203112329/http://dev.hasenj... (although IBM wasn't asking specifically about the open source nature of the license).

PoignardAzur 4y ago
Alright, fine. It's open-source-with-an-asterisk, which is completely different from open-source in every way, and happens to involve having access to the source of the thing. The asterisk says "I'm not allowed to say it's open source because some website I don't care about says it's not the right definition".