Mlem is licensed under the Commons Clause, which prohibits commercial use, even though the project advertises itself as “open source”.
The maintainers have refused to accept PRs that change the wording to “source-available”, edited comments and locked threads about the topic:
While i generally don’t mind about this kind of things, indeed, on the main page of common clause there is a FAQ saying to not call Open source https://commonsclause.com/
Genuine questions: what are your fears about these definitions? Are the mlem developers using community contributions unfairly and gaining money off of other people‘s work under that license? Is the current definition worse than Apollo + Reddit (both proprietary as far as I know) for the consumer?
I don’t have a problem with this, but would be interested to hear why this choice was made. Going strictly by Stallmanism / FOSS purists, CC is considered “non-free” (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#comclause).
If not mistaken Memmy is completely FOSS
