4 ms·
Nothing wrong with making source-available or open core software. But saying it's open source when its license does not follow OSI's definition is confusing at
by quectophoton 2y ago
Nothing wrong with making source-available or open core software.
But saying it's open source when its license does not follow OSI's definition is confusing at best, or misleading at worst.
OSI doesn't have a monopoly on the term, but that's the generally accepted definition (at least IME).
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 2y agoFwiw I thought open source meant the source was available. "FOSS" or "MIT" mean do whatever you want with it
- croes 2y agohttps://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd