Open Source as defined by majority of programmers on Internet, which means either GPL, MIT, or Apache and their derivatives.
Open Source as defined by HN, depending on which timeline you join HN, it could be MIT, BSD only all the way to AGPL only.
Open Source as defined by layman, anything I can see its source is considered as Open. Open Source in its literal sense.
I do not know personally you but I noticed that you posted the link to the announcement. I am guessing you are passionate about the technology and innovation. Dragonfly is much more than the licensing choice we made. I wish HN discussions here were about how fibers work in Dragonfly and how SSD tiering is gonna be implemented and how we provide atomicity for lua scripts while running many of them in parallel etc. Btw, Dragonfly relies on an io-engine called helio (roughly equivalent to tokio) that has been developed by me and open sourced under Apache 2.0.
Because of these two things, I didn't spend a lot of time looking into the technical details and therefore can't really say much on them. By all means it sounds like a very interesting piece of technology- but the license makes it useless to me.
Are you a representative of Y Contaminator/Hacker News? If you are, I will be glad to comply with your request.
[1] Part of the reason why I submitted Dragonfly, interesting technology should get more coverage on HN, and not be ignored simply because of some over zealotry ideological reason.