The software seems to be licensed under the BSL license [1] which is not open source. Please correct the title to avoid misleading headlines.
[1] https://github.com/akaunting/akaunting/blob/master/LICENSE.t...
[1] https://github.com/akaunting/akaunting/blob/master/LICENSE.t...
It's interesting that it will "automatically" switch to GPLv3 in 4 years (as specified in the license).
Would be nice if more closed source software were released with such a license.
Edit: the production Use Grant are atrocious :
> You may make production use of the Licensed Work, provided you do not use it in any of the following ways: (1) Use the Licensed Work with a total of more than two users or one company or one thousand invoices.
If you have more than two users you cannot use it in production.
SO it only useful if you have exactly two users.
The SSPL seems far close to being open than the BSL.
> It's interesting that it will "automatically" switch to GPLv3 in 4 years (as specified in the license).
> Would be nice if more closed source software were released with such a license.
And it would be nice if there was a better term than "source available" to describe licenses such as BSL and SSPL, and ideally to differentiate usage grants. GitHub project under BSL with the above very constraining usage grant vs GitLab project BSL with "do whatever you want just don't host to sell to others" vs code with no license thrown on a .zip on an FTP are all "source available".
I think the problem is that they don't understand the term. Open source is a legal term, with many side meanings, while they seem to be referring only to the fact that the source code is published and therefore is in the open.
It's not really "free" but is also very much "open source," as the source is completely available.