Back in late April, the well-known high-quality SDR hardware company Nuand published a blog post about an Open Source Release of a VHDL ADS-B receiver.
I was quite happy at that time about this, and bookmarked it for further investigation at some later point.
Today I actually looked at the source code, and more by coincidence noticed that the LICENSE file contains a license that is anything but Open Source: The license is a "free for evaluation only" license, and it is only valid if you run the code on an actual Nuand board.
Both of the above are clearly not compatible with any of the well-known and respected definitions of Open Source, particularly not the official Open Source Definition of the Open Source Initiative.
I cannot even start how much this makes me upset. This is once again openwashing, where something that clearly is not Free or Open Source Software is labelled and marketed as such.
I don't mind if an author chooses to license his work under a proprietary license. It is his choice to do so under the law, and it generally makes such software utterly unattractive to me. If others still want to use it, it is their decision. However, if somebody produces or releases non-free or proprietary software, then they should make that very clear and not mis-represent it as something that it clearly isn't!
Open-washing only confuses everyone, and it tries to market the respective company or product in a light that it doesn't deserve. I believe the proper English proverb is to adorn oneself with borrowed plumes.
I strongly believe the community must stand up against such practise and clearly voice that this is not something generally acceptable or tolerated within the Free and Open Source software world. It's sad that this is happening more frequently, like recently with OpenAirInterface (see related blog post).
I will definitely write an e-mail to Nuand management requesting to correct this mis-representation. If you agree with my posting, I'd appreciate if you would contact them, too.