Till Sanders – Designer and Web Developer from the cloudy mountains of Lüdenscheid. Spent the last decade learning about and shaping the difficult interaction between human and metal minds.
Then I should clarify a bit more – "open source" only means that you can read the source code here, it does not imply that it is also Free Open Source Software, licensed under a permissive license acknowledged by the Open Source Initiative. Their license seems to be based on the Apache License with only one exception: it forbids use as a competitor. While slight deviations of Open Source Licenses are not a great idea in general, I find it reasonable that they want to protect their revenue. Maybe dual licensing would have been the better option.
Anyhow, thanks for the heads-up, I'll add a hint to the article.
Viewable source doesn't make something open source. Software doesn't have to be gratis (free as in beer) to be open source, but it does have to be libre (free as in freedom). If a license restricts libre, as the BS License does, then it isn't open source.
Till Sanders – Designer and Web Developer from the cloudy mountains of Lüdenscheid. Spent the last decade learning about and shaping the difficult interaction between human and metal minds.
I understand what you mean and I‘m not saying you’re incorrect. I just feel like the Business Source License deserves a little better. It is not technically an open source license, but it ticks many boxes and even Bruce Perens does not dismiss it, apparently. So it really is in kind of a gray area. Who knows, maybe it will be an acknowledged license in the future. For me, it is close enough to call it open source with an asterisk.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Then I should clarify a bit more – "open source" only means that you can read the source code here, it does not imply that it is also Free Open Source Software, licensed under a permissive license acknowledged by the Open Source Initiative. Their license seems to be based on the Apache License with only one exception: it forbids use as a competitor. While slight deviations of Open Source Licenses are not a great idea in general, I find it reasonable that they want to protect their revenue. Maybe dual licensing would have been the better option.
Anyhow, thanks for the heads-up, I'll add a hint to the article.
Viewable source doesn't make something open source. Software doesn't have to be gratis (free as in beer) to be open source, but it does have to be libre (free as in freedom). If a license restricts libre, as the BS License does, then it isn't open source.
I understand what you mean and I‘m not saying you’re incorrect. I just feel like the Business Source License deserves a little better. It is not technically an open source license, but it ticks many boxes and even Bruce Perens does not dismiss it, apparently. So it really is in kind of a gray area. Who knows, maybe it will be an acknowledged license in the future. For me, it is close enough to call it open source with an asterisk.