> commercial license is only needed if you want to offer a paid network management service or embed it into a proprietary device or app.
A cursory look suggests that it's open source, with restrictions that they clearly list on their site here[0]. I get your point, but I personally don't mind if a business open sources their software and allows free use of it for non commercial cases.
Open source implies nearly unlimited rights for the developer, like BSD, MIT, or Apache.
With these idiosyncratic restrictions (noncommercial, research only, do no evil, etc) we typically say “disclosed source.”
Wrong: the GPL for example is defined as open-source by the Open Source Initiative (source: https://opensource.org/licenses) -- a fact that has not changed since the coining of the term "open source" over 20 years ago.
No it doesn't. You're thinking of copyleft licenses. FOSS is not synonymous with copyleft; many FOSS licenses (recognized as such by RMS and the FSF) are not copyleft.
No, that is "source-code available". "Open source" was defined over 20 years ago by this document and that is still how most software people still use the term: https://opensource.org/osd
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
"Free software" is also an absolutely awful term because for 99.9% of the population "free" means it didn't cost them any money. This will never change no matter how hard RMS tries because its a very common and understood word.
> The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs.
and he definitely doesn't claim that open source is proprietary.
Many closed source programs and libraries allow the users to see and modify the source code for their own use but that doesn't make them open source.