Being "scheduled for open source in three years" is not the same as being open source today.
Keep in mind there is a third option- CodeCov could just be honest about what they're doing. They could just say "shared source" or "source available" and take the exact same actions they're taking, just without misleading people.
From where I’m standing there is a massive difference between “source available” and BSL with Apache 2. The latter does not require goodwill from us in the future.
> Software that has source code available that automatically becomes open source at some explicitly specified, unchangeable, point in the future.
FWIW that's what I call it, but that's not exactly a well known enough term.
They are. In no way was I confused about what they are doing when I read this.
It's practically speaking open source for everybody with a poison pill for companies like AWS that have successfully charged rents on open source without giving anything back (like elastic search).
Restricting the hosting monopolist's freedom in order to fund the development of open source appears to make some people extremely angry.
That's not why anyone is angry. They're angry because it's labeled "Open Source" in the title, and then turns out to be not actually Open Source.
You may think it's purely an apolitical question of definition but it's about as apolitical as saying "Crimea is part of Russia".
Let's see how committed you are to that stance: just have them change it to the proposed wording. Should be no problem, since it's the same thing, right?