[orlandohill]

I don't care about other people's definitions of the term open source. To me, software is open if I can read the source, modify the source, and redistribute modified or unmodified copies. If I have to pay to use it when creating proprietary software, or within a commercial context, then so be it. It makes sense that the people most closely deriving financial benefit from a piece of software should be the ones to fund its continued development and maintenance.

The FSF's concept of four freedoms always appealed to me, but the problem is that freedom 0 allows people to take away the freedom of others, because it allows the creation of proprietary software. The Parity Public License doesn't have that hypocrisy. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html