Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Frankly the pedantry around the definition of Open Source, which I understand, is incredibly nauseating. Sure, this isn't Open Source by "the definition", but it's close enough if you squint. The difference doesn't impact almost anyone. Are you or someone you love impacted by this licensing decision?

If we had accepted this line of reasoning Open Source had been a synonym for source available by now.

For those who wasn't there when it happened you just have to believe us old timers that some companies tried to pass of all kinds of almost-open-source-but-you-are-still-trapped deals almost since the term was coined.

Now even Microsoft have learned but it seems the war against misinformation isn't over yet.

> Throw in an expiry date, dual licensing (pay to play seems more than fair) and I'm content. History be damned.

Fine. I'm not against everything except open source. and I'll happily use it but why why why do you have to call it something that means something else?

Why not call it source available or something?

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact