Open source is not a just a term with margin for interpretation: to be open source, you must comply with the 10 rules defined by the open source initiative. Restricting commercial usage goes against rule 6.
You can call it readable source or whatever, but it's not open source as defined by OSI.
"6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."
> to be open source, you must comply with the 10 rules
The open source initiative didn't not invent this expression. They worked hard to promote their idea of it, and its application. They did a lot of good, but aren't an autorative source when it comes to its definition.
The reality is that the vast majority of software developers do not consider a strict conformance to the 10 OSI criteria as being necessary to apply the term "open source".
Maybe they're all just wrong, but it's worth considering why.
> the vast majority of software developers do not consider a strict conformance to the 10 OSI criteria as being necessary to apply the term "open source"
[citation needed]
My counter claim, without citation, is that I actually believe (from experience) that the vast majority of 'open source' projects are in fact released under licenses that already comply with the 10 OSI criteria, and are therefore 'approved' OSI licenses. This is easily witnessed by looking at the licenses of the majority of open source projects — or perhaps even just the most popular ones.
That would seem to go against your claim regarding 'most developers'.
But it's not actually a debate about 'most developers', it's about the OSS projects out there, not individual devs, no?
