There are other phrases that are usable, such as source first (in the case of FUTO licenses) or source available (when source is under copyright but is provided).
The engine, being actually MIT, is however open source.
I don’t think Katdork is claiming the phrase “open source” is protected. He’s just saying it’s inaccurate in this case. Like claiming a fish has arms — the statement is legal, it’s just wrong.
I'm saying that words have meaning and that meaning should ideally not diluted. But, considering the developer licensed their project as MIT, I'm very happy.
There's nothing in that repo showing what the game actually is? And url the repo is pointing at (https://reprobate.site/) is asking for login credentials.
Please read the open source definition; https://opensource.org/osd.
There are other phrases that are usable, such as source first (in the case of FUTO licenses) or source available (when source is under copyright but is provided).
The engine, being actually MIT, is however open source.