> If you can fork and reuse, then "source-available" is probably a poor term for said license. I agree. Yet projects using said licenses get shamed into adopti

> If you can fork and reuse, then "source-available" is probably a poor term for said license. I agree. Yet projects using said licenses get shamed into adopting the term "source-available" even though it doesn't fit, while "open-source" actually makes more sense in terms of communicating freedoms. It's all so ridiculous. Things need to change.