I’m not complaining; I’m clarifying for less informed readers. It’s a subtle and often misleading distinction.
Calling a license that leads to more proprietary software “even more open source” is absolutely debatable. The only extra restriction is disallowing free software becoming proprietary, which promotes more openness overall.
You’re not wrong by any means, but people should understand the actual tradeoff when considering licenses.
Sounds good to me.
I actually prefer the MIT license too. It’s more open.
If you were a survivor of Unix Wars you’d never touch MIT again
More open strictly in that it allows free software to be rolled up into proprietary software.
So what? Some people just want to make stuff that helps other people.
A more open license is a way to accomplish that.
IMO it’s weird to complain that someone makes their thing even more open source.
I’m not complaining; I’m clarifying for less informed readers. It’s a subtle and often misleading distinction.
Calling a license that leads to more proprietary software “even more open source” is absolutely debatable. The only extra restriction is disallowing free software becoming proprietary, which promotes more openness overall.
You’re not wrong by any means, but people should understand the actual tradeoff when considering licenses.