Healthy open source communities don’t just form around code, but also around shared values and a vision for how their work can improve the world. The true measure of the success of open source is its impact— how the technologies we develop are leveraged to bring about positive social, cultural, and political change.
The term “open source software” was coined specifically to refer to software licensing that recognizes a particular set of freedoms. It is not a generic term for source-available software, and never was.
One of the freedoms of open source is “no discrimination against fields of endeavor.”
Calling the Hippocratic license family “open source” is inaccurate, since its entire goal is to discriminate against certain fields of endeavor.
It’s better described as a sort of source-available license.
You’re quoting the source, but aren’t differentiating between open source and free?
C’mon, person. That was a lousy attempt at sounding smart.
Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code.
Literally the first sentence on the linked page.
The first paragraphs of that are good points. The rest is just Stallman going on a political rant attacking strawman arguments.
There would be music programs allowed only for rap music, and others allowed only for classical music.
