I know exactly what you mean, but this is incorrect.
CC is not "closed source". CC makes a license incompatible with the OSI definition of "open source", which is one of the interpretations of the term.
There's a persistent confusion over the difference between OSI's definition and the casual understanding of it. To the laymen, if you can _see_ the source, then it's an _open_ source. And if you can _use_ and _change_ it, then it's a _free_ source.
So when you start claiming that if it's not "OSI's open source", it's "closed source" - it doesn't help matters in the slightest, nor does it help advancing OSI's view of the open source.
Are you going to tell me next that "free speech" means not paying for the radio? And that everything else is just one interpretation of the term? Or that freeware and free software are interchangeable terms?
CC is not open source and does not get to pretend it is. Come up with your own marketing name.
> CC is not open source and does not get to pretend it is.
CC is not a closed source license either, which is what GP claimed. That's the point.
> Come up with your own marketing name.
... and the second point is that OSI zealotry doesn't make anyone any good. "Open" is an ambiguous word. It's the same issue as with "Free software", which is almost universally followed by the "free as in speech, not as in beer" explainer. 25 years in use, still ambiguous.
"Open source" is a misnomer, it doesn't mean exactly what it says. Ideally, it should've been called "libre source" or some other made-up name, but that boat has sailed. And so flipping people off because their understanding of the term is different from the OSI definition only serves to antagonize them and needlessly paint the whole open source movement bad.
Saying this as someone with all side projects released under OSI licenses, some as far back as in mid 90s.
The GP is me. CC is not open source^TM and hence closed source^TM.
> "Open source" is a misnomer,
Sure, but who cares? The fact is that if you tell me "this software is open source" I know that this is a domain specific term and what it means, just like "this is a normal vector". In particular "normal" here means something else than in standard English.
The only thing you are then doing is complaining about how you wanted to use "normal" for your new cool definition.... That ship has sailed.
Aka pretend it is. If you have to say that you are not actually <adjective> but only "<adjective>", then this is not an alternative definition but alternative facts (i.e. you are lying to deceive people).
