Hacker News Reader

This is a settled debate. You will not convince anyone to use your definitions. We had this debate when MongoDB switched, when CockroachDB switched and for many others. And nothing has changed.

Open source means OSI-approved licence and that will not change.

This is shared source or source-available, not open source.

View on HN

You aren't authorative for the term either.

And, obviously, thanks to your comments, the debate doesn't seem to be settled.

The debate only exists in the heads of apologists for shared source. The OSI definition exists to remove the need for a debate. It's either OSS or it isn't per their definition.

Interesting rejection of reality

Why do non programmers know about open source if it doesn't concern them? They don't have any benefit from an source open application besides maybe theoretically better security audits. I would arue is because people expect that you can pick it up and change the code, so it can be forked and continued in the future and also because it's usually free.

It's also not the only deceptive Adventisten. He also claimed that you can use it how you want the only use case they want prevent is injecting ads into their app. But that could be better solved with a trademark.

Doesn't seem like this is a settled debate at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com