4 ms·
And not by opensource.org's definition, which prohibits use restrictions. It's not reasonable to act like OP is being idiosyncratic when this fails to meet the
by cjbprime 3y ago
And not by opensource.org's definition, which prohibits use restrictions. It's not reasonable to act like OP is being idiosyncratic when this fails to meet the protected definition of "open source".
- DandyDev 3y agoI admit not to have read the whole paper, but in the intro nowhere do they mention “open source”, so it seems unfair to measure them by that definition
- gpm 3y agoThe term "open source" is not protected, the OSI (opensource.org) attempted and failed to acquire a trademark on that term.
- cjbprime 3y agoFair enough. Is there any shared definition of "open source" which permits use restrictions, then?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]