Would you rather they just keep their source completely closed then?
I just don’t understand the criticism of a company transparently acting in its best interest (in what I would consider to be a completely reasonable way).
I just don’t understand the criticism of a company transparently acting in its best interest (in what I would consider to be a completely reasonable way).
“Open Source” has a specific meaning. It’d be like saying “…is now free!” with “free” defined as some price I consider to round to zero. It’s clearly misrepresenting the word which has a specific meaning.
For this reason, I think the Business Source License (BSL) (with an Open Source Change License) is less nefarious than the Server Side Public License (SSPL).
I just want them to stop using deceptive language.
> I just don’t understand the criticism of a company transparently acting in its best interest (in what I would consider to be a completely reasonable way).
They are lying in order to benefit from the good will and legitimacy that open source brings.
What you are doing right now is a pretty transparent motte-and-bailey <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy>
Don't do that.