Hacker News Reader

It’s absolutely open source - and completely free for commercial use. That license simply encumbers that specific functionality from resale. I don’t want anyone selling a SaaS version for profit (if someone wants to do that, they can contact me and we can talk about it).

View on HN

Nothing wrong with making source-available or open core software.

But saying it's open source when its license does not follow OSI's definition is confusing at best, or misleading at worst.

OSI doesn't have a monopoly on the term, but that's the generally accepted definition (at least IME).

Fwiw I thought open source meant the source was available. "FOSS" or "MIT" mean do whatever you want with it

https://opensource.org/osd

Reply on news.ycombinator.com