[mroche]

Thanks for clarifying, that's what I assumed you meant. I've just seen enough people get antsy or vocally against free software using a copyleft license instead of a permissive one* it makes me second guess some phrasings.

> being open source doesn’t automatically mean you can use the software commercially

I acknowledge there is a split in recognizing "open source" as between (a) a broad term of source code read-ability or (b) attributed to the specification defined by the Open Source Initiative. I see both arguments, but I believe using the OSI definition can eliminate some of these uncertainties.

* Despite the fact it's an end-user tool/application they will not be exposing, modifying, or extending in any way.