Edge claims to be "open source" but is not open source

[mutagenfork]

In the FAQ, Airbitz/Edge claims that the wallet code is "open source"

"Is the Airbitz Wallet Open Source?
Yes. Airbitz believes in complete transparency and our source code is open for use and review by anyone.

Airbitz uses a modified BSD license which freely permits viewing and usage of the source code but requires permission to use modified code.
"

https://airbitz.co/go/faq/airbitz-wallet-open-source/
https://github.com/EdgeApp/edge-core-js/blob/develop/LICENSE

However, the Airbitz license does not meet Criteria 3 of the Open Source definition:

"The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."

https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

Therefore, Airbitz/Edge's claims to be "open source" are incorrect. IMO, you should describe your source code as "source viewable".

[swansontec]

I understand what you are saying, and agree that Edge is not "free software", since some of our modules have restrictive licenses. I don't agree that the OSI is the the sole arbiter of what makes something "open source", though. This debate goes back much further.

We use "open source" to mean that the source is viewable, but you don't necessarily get the Four Freedoms that Richard Stallman promotes. This is the older, original distinction between "open source" and "free software". Since then, the OSI has tried to clarify and restrict what "open source" means. While this effort is laudable, we aren't aiming for of claiming "OSI compliance", so I don't think it is relevant to our marketing.

[mutagenfork]

I think your definition of "open source" is not what most people think of when they think of open source software. Therefore, I think your claims that your software is "open source" will be perceived as misleading marketing speak by much of the developer / user community.