“You may not alter or redistribute this software in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.”
This kind of stuff is generally regarded as non-Open Source.
This kind of stuff is generally regarded as non-Open Source.
It was always meant to be a trademark, even if they ended up losing that particular battle. It was deemed to descriptive and generic to be trademarkable, IIRC. The OSI published their criteria anyway, enforced it as much as they could, and really publicized the term over the years. Of course they get to define it.
there's nothing wrong with source-available, but source-available and open-source are not equivalent.
It's not open for them to use.
To argue otherwise is to confuse a window with a door.