> I wouldn’t consider any of this open source any more.
Stallman's term is "free software", this said "open source".
I use OSD to define it, so I consider it technically open source, but to me it's open source that isn't under an acceptable license.
Stallman's term is "free software", this said "open source".
I use OSD to define it, so I consider it technically open source, but to me it's open source that isn't under an acceptable license.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
“In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions.”
There's no shortcuts to making a nuanced topic much more clear.
However, it is a frequently used term, so it's useful for quickly referring to these licenses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_software_license
I also didn't say that this type of license is the only kind that is acceptable to me. I like copyleft, including AGPL, and for me it depends on the context. In this situation, I want a vendor neutral federated chat tool. There already is one, XMPP, and Matrix has long been putting itself forth as the successor. However, they just made the reference implementation non vendor-neutral.