I think for customers having different companies have their own approaches to solving this problem is vastly preferable to having different companies solve the same problem in exactly the same way.
Example: Our company self-hosts sentry, this license won't effect us at all, we're still free to use and modify the source. We only use it internally - we don't sell "access" to it.
---
This is cropping up more and more with various software companies. They _want_ to keep their source open. But people take the source, and just start selling it (Looking at you amazon) without actually contributing. It's one of those, "This is why we can't have nice things"
Words have meaning, and trying to change the meaning of open source to benefit corporations is not something I'm willing to get behind.
They are still open source because the source is open.
Not every open source lic is like MIT where you can do whatever you want.
if it is not, then Sentry needs to consider whether it is important for them to stay Open Source or not.
and, if we see many more cases like this, then maybe it's time that we rethink what the Open Source definition should be.
it looks like neither Open Source, nor Free Software haver put much consideration to this problem yet, and it's time that we look at the implications.
my expectation is that any change in the definition of either will not meet much positive reaction, but i think the discussion is worth having.
That is not the definition of 'Open Source'. Using it interchangeably with 'open source' just adds confusion. And from the other uses of 'open source' in your comment, it seems you're using it in the same sense as 'Open Source'
> Not every open source lic is like MIT where you can do whatever you want.
No Open Source license allows you to "do whatever you want". Even the WTFPL, which comes close to that goal, is not an Open Source license. Being Open Source comes with a few requirements, which every Open Source license, licensor, and licensee must fulfill.
You can provide Sentry-as-a-service but you can't do so commercially.
You can use the Sentry code commercially but you can't use it to provide Sentry-as-a-service commercially.
If MongoDB were AGPL, both a company providing MongoDB-as-a-Service and a non-profit web app using MongoDB in the backend would equally need to publish their source code.
The BSL just says "you can't do this one specific thing for 36 months".
The AGPL is a more viral version of the GPL, which basically says "if your code uses this code, your code is now GPL licensed" and also "for all GPL licensed software you distribute, you must also make its source code available" (with the AGPL just redefining that "distribute" as "distribute or make accessible as a service").