I agree that as an author, you’re free to pick any license you want. If you want to release source code just to allow PRs, and don’t market it as open source –

I agree that as an author, you’re free to pick any license you want. If you want to release source code just to allow PRs, and don’t market it as open source – go for it. Fair Source is a better model in that regard, kudos for using that! And I personally have no problem with using the term “open source” for that, although just using the distinct term is better. In case of Winamp though, they: 1. Used a crayon license that prohibited pretty much everything and was indeed focused on collaboration 2. Made a press release about “opening up” the source – not using the exact phrase “open source” (except in the URL: https://about.winamp.com/press/article/winamp-open-source-code https://about.winamp.com/press/article/winamp-open-source-co...), but misleading nonetheless 3. Weren’t even the original authors This is openwashing, and it is ridiculous, and they were rightfully shamed.