7 ms·
I think calling it "Open-source" is misleading considering its license.
by relatedtitle 3y ago
I think calling it "Open-source" is misleading considering its license.
- jszymborski 3y agoThis is almost certainly best described as "source-available"
- NewJazz 3y agoEh, we could get into how to best explain the Business Source License. Not saying source available is wrong, but I'd say the term is incomplete.
- ozymandias1337 3y agoPerhaps "source-curious" should suffice.
- mellosouls 3y agoAgree, and it's explicitly declared as not open source in its own terms, so I presume a mistake in the posting here. Title here should be changed I think. For anybody interested a summary of "Business Source" terms here: https://fossa.com/blog/business-source-license-requirements-provisions-history/ https://fossa.com/blog/business-source-license-requirements-...
- ozymandias1337 3y agoIts open-source as in OSINT
- skeptrune 3y agoAgree, we call it "source-available" everywhere. If we missed a spot, I will change it