As confusing as it is, if you’re to follow the generally accepted definition from the Open Source Initiative, “open-source” doesn’t just mean open source code, but also openness to modification and redistribution - what you called free, others call libre, etc. Just having an open source code, they call “source available”.
But if “You can fork it and do whatever, even remove the “please donate” thing, but if you distribute any spy/malware versions they have legal avenues to force it to get taken down”, that sounds like open source to me? You can indeed modify and redistribute it in almost any way you would like!
That’s not open source, it’s source-available
Sounds more like open source but not free software?
As confusing as it is, if you’re to follow the generally accepted definition from the Open Source Initiative, “open-source” doesn’t just mean open source code, but also openness to modification and redistribution - what you called free, others call libre, etc. Just having an open source code, they call “source available”.
It annoys me to no end, but it is what it is…
But if “You can fork it and do whatever, even remove the “please donate” thing, but if you distribute any spy/malware versions they have legal avenues to force it to get taken down”, that sounds like open source to me? You can indeed modify and redistribute it in almost any way you would like!