Then that is not the open source by definition.
https://opensource.org/osd
I understand what you want to say but that's "source-available" not "open source". Technically in literal sense open-source...
Yeah, I've seen that reddit thread before and I don't think what I've written above is incorrect. One of the commenters mentions this:
The above commenter is mistaking Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and Open Source. You can have open source software without giving up the copyright/licensing, which is what your product is.
and then Toby commented:
That's what I originally thought too. It would seem it depends where you look. The official Open Source definition requires freedom. This GNU article acknowledges that it is easy to misunderstand because of the natural meaning of the words "open source".
So I guess it's not very clearly defined as to what open source could mean.
You don't have permission to do this.
You're going a bit too fast! Take a break and try again in a moment.
Something went wrong! Please reload the page and try again.
Yeah, I've seen that reddit thread before and I don't think what I've written above is incorrect. One of the commenters mentions this:
and then Toby commented:
So I guess it's not very clearly defined as to what open source could mean.