In the last years, I have seen plenty of users telling or promoting certain ultra-permissive rules as part of Open Source but which are not even in the definition like the use of read-only licenses, being a good example the MEGA software.
However, I didn’t find exact source of these ideas and only believed in the misinformation of certain videos in *tube or similar.
Today, I was looking for a FLOSS VPN client to use at home as I use MATE DE and found Printunl Client promoted as Open Source. Or that was everything until I read the license.
I have to fix something in which I was wrong, even older releases, they only free the changes made to the Chromium codebase but maintaining a part of their own code, for the interface, as review-only license. Source: https://help.vivaldi.com/desktop/privacy/is-vivaldi-open-source/
The concept of review-only is something I have seen mostly promoted as open source when it is not.
Ah, thanks for posting that. I guess that horrible bullshit it’s-still-practically-open-source excuse actually came from their own website.
Yes, what they wrote there is technically correct and technically they did not claim that they were open-source. But they also wrote it in the most confusing, most misleading way possible. That whole response should’ve began with “No, it’s not open-source”.