Recently I've noticed a few people on HN - including dang of all people - say things like 'there's no widely accepted definition of open source'.
This is old news to people that have spent a bunch of time in open source, but: there is a specific definition of open source, called the open source definition, by the people that invented the term open source.
Licenses that don't allow forks, competition, commercial use by others, etc. are definitely not open source, because they don't meet the open source definition.
That's all. We can now resume what we were doing beforehand.
Recently I've noticed a few people on HN - including dang of all people - say things like 'there's no widely accepted definition of open source'.
This is old news to people that have spent a bunch of time in open source, but: there is a specific definition of open source, called the open source definition, by the people that invented the term open source.
Licenses that don't allow forks, competition, commercial use by others, etc. are definitely not open source, because they don't meet the open source definition.
That's all. We can now resume what we were doing beforehand.