Hacker News Reader

Your definition (in the first line) would imply that closed-source freeware is commercial, I don't agree with that. I do agree that commercial is orthogonal to open source.

So my original point about the license not being properly commercial stands. I do agree with you that it is not really proper to claim that there is a spectrum between commercial and open source.

View on HN

dragonwriter's not defining anything in his first line, he's pointing out a common misconception.

In reality, the 'opposite' of Open Source is proprietary. There is commercial Open Source (Red Hat), and proprietary software with source code available (Unreal SDK).

Then I agree with you both. Thanks for the clarification.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com