... was, in fact, not addressed.
To the extent that my comment contains speculative claims, the charges are aligned with their undisputed past behavior.
And given that it's blatantly obvious what's going on, even without their previous admission, no one has any obligation to pussyfoot around on things like giving them the benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt here—no reasonable doubt, at least. Only willful mendacity.
They are not being willfully mendacious. You are being willfully dickish.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Oh, and please don't say "the standard definition", because that is definitely contested, even after all these years.
That's easy: Defold (the project linked here).
> Also, if that source is available, you could point out which definition of open source you are going by.
That's easy, too: I'm using the same definition that the Defold developers are using.
(Feel free to address literally any of the pre-emptive points I made in my post, rather than responding as if I didn't already make them.)