[cxr]

That the developers have already been caught with their hand in the cookie jar and called out on it and apologized once before (for, in their own words, "misrepresenting the license"), and they stated that they would/did remove the term "Open Source" from their site precisely in order to not confuse the issue...

... was, in fact, not addressed.

To the extent that my comment contains speculative claims, the charges are aligned with the developers' undisputed past behavior.

And given that it's blatantly obvious what's going on, even without their previous admission, no one has any obligation to pussyfoot around on things like giving the benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt here—no reasonable doubt, at least. Only willful mendacity.

[dronodeath]

It is very clearly not open source nor is it claimed to be open source. They take great pains to explain their structure.

They are not being willfully mendacious. You are being willfully dickish.

[dang]

Please don't cross into personal attack or call names in arguments. We're trying for something different here, and you can make your substantive points without that.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.