Title says "open source", but the Business Source License (BSL) is not an Open Source Initiative (OSI) approved open-source license.
However, someone earlier today put me onto the concept of AGPL licenses so I changed MIRA over to AGPL because it still aligns with my overall intent of protecting my significant effort from someone coming in and Flappy Bird-ing it while still making it freely available to anyone who wants to access, modify, anything it.
Words and phrases have shared meanings, BSL doesn't conform to the meaning we've attached to open source.
DHH also claims he is super open source when in reality he already soul-sent to the big tech bros:
https://world.hey.com/dhh/the-o-saasy-license-336c5c8f
We also had this recently with arduino. I don't understand why companies try to get that way. To me it is not an open source licence - it is a closed source business licence. Just with different names.
I liked BSL because the code ~was~ proprietary for a time so someone couldn't duplicate my software I've worked so hard on, paywall it, and put me out of business. I'm a one-man development operation and a strong gust of wind could blow me over. I liked BSL because it naturally decayed into a permissive open source license automatically after a timeout. I'd get a head start but users could still use it and modify it from day one as long as they didn't charge money for it.
Open Source has a specific definition and this license does not conform to that definition.
Stating it is open source creates a bait and switch effect with people who understand this definition, get excited, then realize this project is not actually open source.
To be fair, this wouldn't be an issue if Open Source stuck with "Debian Free Software". If you really want to call it a bait and switch, open source did it first.
I'm not seeing the justification for this comment. If anything that license, like the BSL, is aimed at keeping the small guy who worked on X in business so they can profit from their work (always need to put food on the table) while also sharing its innards with the world.
If you’re able to self host and run the tool for any use, it’s effectively a free, extensible, modifiable software solution.
Copyleft licenses are as restrictive as the license DHH put out with Fizzy. I’m an Apache 2.0 or MIT licensing OSS advocate myself, but it’s difficult to argue that it’s worse or equal to a fully closed SaaS solution.
It’s not even remotely close to one of these bullshit “ee” OSS licenses