panbd

It is not open source simply because it does not conform to the OSI definition of open source [1], which is what everyone understands open source to be. This license particularly places restrictions on how the software and derivative works can be used in hosted services ([2], links from their site.) And to your latter point, both free/open licenses allow commercial use; in fact, restricting commercial use would make the license non-free.

What is annoying is companies redefining these terms for PR, especially when they end up confusing the newer generations among the crowd.

[1] https://opensource.org/osd

[2] https://github.com/posit-dev/positron?tab=License-1-ov-file#...

I've actually learned a few little tricks reading the fucking gcc manual. If you're coding C (or C++) regularly, the manual is a good learning source and is well-written.

Behold, a free-as-in-beer, source-available program that brands itself as "free and open source".

These guys' PR is trying too hard.