That is not the definition of 'Open Source'. Using it interchangeably with 'open source' just adds confusion. And from the other uses of 'open source' in your comment, it seems you're using it in the same sense as 'Open Source'
> Not every open source lic is like MIT where you can do whatever you want.
No Open Source license allows you to "do whatever you want". Even the WTFPL, which comes close to that goal, is not an Open Source license. Being Open Source comes with a few requirements, which every Open Source license, licensor, and licensee must fulfill.
if it is not, then Sentry needs to consider whether it is important for them to stay Open Source or not.
and, if we see many more cases like this, then maybe it's time that we rethink what the Open Source definition should be.
it looks like neither Open Source, nor Free Software haver put much consideration to this problem yet, and it's time that we look at the implications.
my expectation is that any change in the definition of either will not meet much positive reaction, but i think the discussion is worth having.
They are still open source because the source is open.
Not every open source lic is like MIT where you can do whatever you want.