[johnkizer]

Disappointing that a website that touts itself for, among other things, "Open Source News", is missing the core definition issue in that headline: what is at issue here has zero to do with how open or closed the source code is. It's only related to how free/libre the license is.

That's a big deal to some, no doubt, but it's important to be precise about language in cases like this, especially since folks will undoubtedly assume that this means secret user-hostile things will now be embedded in the source code, sight-unseen.

[happymellon]

The licence is the definition of Open Source.