The binary mentioned is different. Omier was saying either you share all the source code, or it’s not open-source. You don’t get to retain some proprietary blob for an essential component and still say the whole app is open-source. Pricing is an entirely different question.
If you have the OSI-approved license, you are open source. If you don’t, then you have some other kind of license.
What he’s saying is that there’s no partially open source license. You’re either using a OSI-approved license—to which you can say your software is open source—or you don’t. It doesn’t matter that your software has 90% of the terms of an open source license, but you restrict it in situation X (“corporations can’t use it without paying me”), in that case it simply isn’t open source, it’s another made up license.
You can always create any license you want, such as Qt does to allow people statically linking Qt or to modify it without distributing the modified Qt code, but in that case it is simply another license available, that isn’t open source.
The binary mentioned is different. Omier was saying either you share all the source code, or it’s not open-source. You don’t get to retain some proprietary blob for an essential component and still say the whole app is open-source. Pricing is an entirely different question.
That’s not what his phrase meant.
What he’s saying is that there’s no partially open source license. You’re either using a OSI-approved license—to which you can say your software is open source—or you don’t. It doesn’t matter that your software has 90% of the terms of an open source license, but you restrict it in situation X (“corporations can’t use it without paying me”), in that case it simply isn’t open source, it’s another made up license.
You can always create any license you want, such as Qt does to allow people statically linking Qt or to modify it without distributing the modified Qt code, but in that case it is simply another license available, that isn’t open source.