IMO the most important part of open source licenses is the obligation that anyone who modifies and shares the code publishes the changes with the same license. It’s not just that the original creator is giving permission to use the code, they’re doing it so the code can become the foundation of something everyone can add to in perpetuity.
So calling unlicensed software “open source” isn’t just abusing the original creator, it’s abusing everyone who invests their time in it with the thought of potentially adding their own improvements.
IMO the most important part of open source licenses is the obligation that anyone who modifies and shares the code publishes the changes with the same license. It’s not just that the original creator is giving permission to use the code, they’re doing it so the code can become the foundation of something everyone can add to in perpetuity.
So calling unlicensed software “open source” isn’t just abusing the original creator, it’s abusing everyone who invests their time in it with the thought of potentially adding their own improvements.