> Restricting the hosting monopolist's freedom appears to make some people extremely angry.
That's not why anyone is angry. They're angry because it's labeled "Open Source" in the title, and then turns out to be not actually Open Source.
That's not why anyone is angry. They're angry because it's labeled "Open Source" in the title, and then turns out to be not actually Open Source.
You may think it's purely an apolitical question of definition but it's about as apolitical as saying "Crimea is part of Russia".
Let's see how committed you are to that stance: just have them change it to the proposed wording. Should be no problem, since it's the same thing, right?