airglow

Make sure your rice isn't from Arkansas, Louisiana, or Texas, because rice from those states are contaminated with higher levels of arsenic.

Nintendo restricting game and app access on the Switch is also anticompetitive. However, Apple's anticompetitive restrictions on iOS are a higher-priority problem because smartphones are essential communication devices while video game consoles are not.

Molly is a Signal client fork that uses UnifiedPush instead of Google's push notification service.

That's incorrect. GPL licenses are open source.

The GPL does not restrict anyone from selling or distributing GPL-licensed software as a component of an aggregate software distribution. For example, all Linux distributions contain GPL-licensed software, as the Linux kernel is GPLv2.

Software licenses that "discriminate against any person or group of persons" or "restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor" are not open source. Llama's license doesn't just restrict Llama from being used by companies with "700 million monthly active users", it also restricts Llama from being used to "create, train, fine tune, or otherwise improve an AI model" or being used for military purposes (although Meta made an exception for the US military). Therefore, Llama is not open source.

Exactly!

If you are referring to licenses that prohibit commercial use or prevent certain types of users from using the software, those licenses are not open source because they "discriminate against any person or group of persons" or "restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor".

For example, if a developer offers their software in a source-available "community" version that is restricted to non-commercial use and a proprietary "enterprise" version, neither the community version nor the enterprise version is open source. On the other hand, if a developer uses an open core licensing model by offering an open source "community" version and a proprietary "enterprise" version, the community version is open source while the enterprise version is not.

Open source software can be sold at different prices to different customers, and still remain open source. Open source software can also be sold only to certain types of customers, and still remain open source. Who the developer decides to sell or distribute the software to, and at what price, is unrelated to how the software is licensed.

However, because the Open Source Definition prohibits open source software licenses from discriminating against "any person or group of persons", the customers who buy open source software cannot be restricted from reselling or redistributing the software to any other individual or organization.

Nobody has any objection to companies making their source code available, and they are free to call their software "source-available", "source-first", or some other term because their source code is available. But if they restrict what users can do with the software, then it isn't open source. MongoDB, Redis, and even FUTO now all recognize this distinction.

The FOSS community, at large, doesn't tolerate the watering down of recognized terms such as "open source" by bad actors who want to co-opt the term for marketing while denying users the right to use open source software for any purpose. That is known as openwashing. This kind of misappropriation is not welcome in any kind of movement, not just the FOSS movement.

The free software and open source software movements both support rights for users, which include the right to use free software and open source software for all commercial purposes without restriction. These movements support the release of source code as one requirement for ensuring these user rights, but source availability is not the only requirement for a piece of software to be open source.

There's no problem with creating another classification of restricted source-available licenses as long as it isn't called open source, a term rooted in the open source software movement's adoption of the Open Source Definition for over 20 years.

As for myself, I personally prefer source-available software over software with no source available, though I also prefer FOSS over restrictively licensed source-available software.

Proprietary source-available software existed before open source software, and that's what these restricted licenses are. The FOSS community does not appreciate businesses co-opting the term open source to promote software that doesn't grant users the right to use the source code for any purpose.

Yikes. I'll be sticking with NewPipe and other FOSS apps.