Not much more strict than CC-BY-NC, unless I’m missing something? The “you may not represent your fork as my product” is a good abuse prevention that I’m not sure the equivalent CC contains, good call including that.
“You may not alter or redistribute this software in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.”
This kind of stuff is generally regarded as non-Open Source.
Terry is no longer calling this open source after someone pointed this out. The title of the original article now reads "VVVVVV’s Source Code Is Now Public".
"Don't make VVVVV 2 with my code" seems to be what they're going for. I don't know if I agree with the sentiment, but it's nice to have this source available, so if this is the price we have to pay...
The term “Open Source” has a precise definition, determined by the Open Source Initiative, who invented the term and started promoting it. Nobody used this term in software contexts before they did. They get to define it.
Not sure why this is downvoted. One of the criteria when the term "open source" was decided on by the people who went to form the OSI was that it must not have (much) documented earlier use in order to become eligible for trademark protection.
It was always meant to be a trademark, even if they ended up losing that particular battle. It was deemed to descriptive and generic to be trademarkable, IIRC. The OSI published their criteria anyway, enforced it as much as they could, and really publicized the term over the years. Of course they get to define it.
The analogy doesn’t really hold. Is a bathroom door at a grocery store called a “window” rather than a “door” if they prohibit you from bringing unpaid groceries through it?
Not all windows are doors. Don’t worry about it, I’m terrible at analogies that make sense to anyone (including programmers, sadly). And if I clarified I’d just be attacked further for not endorsing the OSI party line when it comes to these things. It’s not you, it’s me, etc.
