Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't drink, so I have no opinion on champagne, and I don't use Campsite, so I don't have any opinion on whether the license is reasonable for what it offers. All I know is that the words "open source" and "source available" would look and sound basically synonymous in pretty much any other context, and the common consensus that one of them apparently means something much more prescriptive will never make sense to…
You are going to have a difficult life experience if you cling to the idea that things have to make sense from a linguistic perspective where most others seem to have found acceptance in how things are interpreted and used in the real world. Words are context sensitive. Openness here refers to the user freedoms, which go beyond the permission to read but not reuse. Source that is merely available could be regarded as…
Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license
#111I can simultaneously understand what's meant when people say "open source" versus "source available" and still think that it's a silly, poorly-named distinction and therefore compare it to "champagne" versus "sparkling cider".