▲ | marcosdumay 3 days ago | |||||||
> telling you that this isn’t open source Are you talking about promoting some software as open source when it's in fact not? Because yes, there's something wrong with that, you shouldn't do it, and people will rightfully react loudly if you try. People don't complain about proprietary software honestly communicated as that. | ||||||||
▲ | sarchertech 2 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||
This is exactly the kind of thing, I’m talking about. Open source has mostly been captured by large corporations because purists refuse to recognize the gradient between proprietary and completely free. If I license my software as MIT but with an exception that you can’t use it for commercial purposes if you make more than $100 million a year in revenue, that’s a lot closer to open source than proprietary. We should be normalizing licenses that place restrictions on large corporations. I think the world would be a much better place if we just changed the definition of open source to include such licenses. We don’t even really need to change the definition because normal everyday use of the term would already include them. | ||||||||
|