It's about unambiguously understanding exactly what my rights are and how I can use that code.

In the case of the janky new 37signals license: what exactly counts as "... where the primary value of the service is the functionality of the Software itself"?

Who gets to define the "primary value" of the thing I built?

▲

jrowen 5 hours ago | parent [-]

So would you say that (in your opinion) a source available license could in theory call itself open source, if it used language you found to be unambiguous about your rights? Or is that not possible?

▲

simonw 4 hours ago | parent [-]

If it calls itself "open source" and I go to https://opensource.org/licenses and can't find an approved copy of the license - or I can't ask my favourite open source expert lawyer for their advice on it - then I don't want it to call itself open source.

	▲	jrowen 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Understood, thanks.