> Open source really needs something like the CC-BY-NC-ND* license.
That seems akin to saying "vegan food really needs pork", since by definition a NC licence can't be open source. Not to mention such licences cause as many, if not more, problems than they solve.
Notably the open source foundation tried and failed to trademark the term open source in 1999.
As such “by definition a NC license can’t be open source” is true only by certain definitions. Open source is a generic term, not owned by the OSI, despite the holy wars fought over it.
I realize my post is controversial and may spur vitriol from some. It is an uncomfortable truth for many.
"Vegan" isn't trademarked either, but has a generally acknowledged meaning, just as open source has a generally acknowledged meaning of meeting the OSI open source definition.
As such “by definition a NC license can’t be open source” is true only by certain definitions. Open source is a generic term, not owned by the OSI, despite the holy wars fought over it.
I realize my post is controversial and may spur vitriol from some. It is an uncomfortable truth for many.