FOSS and OSS mean the same thing. Apparently this stems from MBAs failing to understand the difference between free speech and free beer, and automatically assuming the later.
So this is “source available”, and the label “open source” is bogus.
The term “open source” is well defined by OSS. It seems like the client itself is open source, but the server is under a proprietary license. So yeah, this aint it.
Edit: alright, I stand corrected.
FOSS and OSS mean the same thing. Apparently this stems from MBAs failing to understand the difference between free speech and free beer, and automatically assuming the later.
So this is “source available”, and the label “open source” is bogus.
The term “open source” is well defined by OSS. It seems like the client itself is open source, but the server is under a proprietary license. So yeah, this aint it.