> open source only meant the open source definition by the open source initiative Some people will argue about that point and say it ain't so, but you've seen

> open source only meant the open source definition by the open source initiative Some people will argue about that point and say it ain't so, but you've seen what I think about that :-) > 'access to the source code but no free license'. I've never seen a good term for that but some big names do it - Atlassian used to do it with JIRA and Confluence (don't know if they still do). It's not a bad thing to do - it's just not Open Source. I guess this confusion is why Richard Stallman wrote this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h...