[hotpotamus]

This sounds like it's getting into a pedantry I wasn't aware of. If the source is available for me to look at and potentially mess around with, I'd consider it open source, but I assume it's the non-commercial aspect that makes it not "Open Source"?

That said, I'm very impressed with the reverse engineering work on this having played it before.

[dontlaugh]

There’s a clear widely accepted definition https://opensource.org/osd/

[burke]

This is a claim by an organization on ownership of a phrase used by humans in common speech. That doesn’t mean it’s what people mean when they say it.

[bananabiscuit]

Don’t forget who you’re arguing with on this website. Most people here earn their livelihood by commercializing huge amounts of work done for free by others. They definitely have a horse in this race.

[jraph]

What is this conspiracy theory now?

The requirement to allow selling is also true for free software, and RMS had user rights in mind, not commercial interests.

[bayindirh]

There are many licenses and license models, and there's an already a consensus on what consists of open source software.

There are also licenses which shows you the code, but you can't legally reuse parts of it. Even some of the licenses prohibit you from compiling and creating your own version and use it, yet alone study, modify and/or distribute.

There are many sinister versions of so-called open source software per your definition. The most famous ones in my book is Microsoft's VSCode and Google's Chrome.

Both have "open source" counterparts VSCodium & Chromium, yet they lack the sauce to perform like the closed source one, or is confined to its small space and prevented from operating like the closed source versions.

Can we call these crippled versions open source software? Yes, they compile & run, but to what extent? They are intentionally a shadow if their real selves, and this creates a situation where you can see the code but can't use it. They run afoul the idea behind open source by adopting a permissive license, and abusing the license to create the closed source, superior version which is force-fed to users.

Even GPL doesn't prohibit selling the software itself or other commercial/for profit uses. It bolsters four freedoms, and make sure that it's continued from generation to generation, maintainer to maintainer.

So, just because you don't agree on the ideas, ideals and consensus amongst the developers and open source / free software people, it doesn't give you the license to treat every codebase the way you see fit regardless of the license it contains.

[hutzlibu]

I have not used chromium in a while, but when I did, all it could not do compared to chrome, was playing proprietary codecs (I could add via terminal somehow).

Did this change?

[bayindirh]

Chrome has higher performance w.r.t. Chromium in some aspects [0].

[0]: https://arewefastyet.com/win10/benchmarks/overview?numDays=6...

[mannerheim]

> Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

[jraph]

> common speech

In which situation outside the developer world people use this phrase… to mean something other than FLOSS?

Open source is not common speech. It's jargon. Jargon that's becoming popular outside the tech world because of the advocacy around open source and free software going on.