It's clearly open source. What you mean to say is that it's not Free Software. Don't get me wrong I'm an ally of open source, but the very notion that open source or free software are somehow protected words is funny by itself.

Someone created a decent app, posted the source for it and allows you to play around with it. Be grateful, or ignore it, or bash it for technical reasons, but this "I don't actually care about the software I just came to say it's not really open source", because that one mention in the readme is odd to me.

I'm kind of assuming it might turn open core at some point in the future, but for now it's not.

Edit: I'm fully aware that the comment is controversial and not happily received by the HN community, but contrary to popular belief the open source initiative has no copyright claim to the words open source, merely to the open source initiative phrase. No downvotes will change that.

But even if you use the phrases by opensource.com:

The term "open source" refers to something people can

modify - fork

and share - pull request

because its design is publicly accessible.

I fully get why someone would dislike the strict way he defined his license terms, but it's still in accordance with modify and share.

"If you move beyond modifying the code and decide to distribute your modified version (or the original), that is the point at which there may be compliance issues with the open source license. You only need to check you are passing on the same rights to others as you received with the original code. "

You can distribute it just fine using the pull-requests. Again, it's fine to be against this, but "you're not allowing me to distribute it the way i want therefore it can't be open source" is a moot point.

I'm not argueing for his license, but I'm against the senseless bashing of licenses I disagree with.

I think you're confusing this with the difference between having to make additions available as open source as well (like with the GPL) versus being able to keep additions closed source (like MIT or BSD).

In this case, however, you're not allowed to distribute additions at all, unless you contribute them back to the original project. In other words, forking's not allowed.

That's not commonly considered to be open source.

The license does not meet the Open Source Definition (based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines), which means it is not open source.

It's not about copyright or the OSI's lack thereof. It's about abusing language to bring along a mindshare that isn't rightfully yours. The OSI definition of open source is the broadly accepted definition of open source. Using it to describe something which isn't is lying, in the same way that serving someone bacon and eggs when you put "cake" on your menu is lying. Neither the terms "bacon and eggs" nor "cake" has to be copyrighted for this to be true.

Not that I'm acusing the author of DevHub of lying, I'm just clarifying the problem.

Thanks for the comment! Totally agree with you :)