My entire point is that “Source available” is a term frequently used in a derogatory way to make software that doesn’t follow the principles and hey espouse sound dirty.
My entire point is how big tech has captured the zeitgeist, so the common use of that term is irrelevant.
>No court in any legal system would throw away a license based on giving "too much control".
You are 100% incorrect. Contracts are frequently found unenforceable for this exact reason.
>So it does not meet the original free software's required freedoms, and is therefore not free software?
The original definition says nothing about a fee or what restrictions may be in place.
My entire point is how big tech has captured the zeitgeist, so the common use of that term is irrelevant.
>No court in any legal system would throw away a license based on giving "too much control".
You are 100% incorrect. Contracts are frequently found unenforceable for this exact reason.
>So it does not meet the original free software's required freedoms, and is therefore not free software?
The original definition says nothing about a fee or what restrictions may be in place.