4 ms·

Just wanting to understand the definition of Open Source you are using here, considering that you can see and download the source here: https://github.com/hash

• gnabgib 2y ago
  "Going forward, we will refer to the open, freely available versions as “community”. The BSL license is open, free, and source-available. However, it does not meet the definition of open source as defined by OSI" https://www.hashicorp.com/license-faq https://www.hashicorp.com/license-faq From Open Source to Source Available https://news.itsfoss.com/open-source-source-available/ https://news.itsfoss.com/open-source-source-available/ "The BSL (also sometimes abbreviated as BUSL) is considered a source-available license (..) Unlike open source licenses, the BSL prohibits the licensed code from being used in production — without explicit approval from the licensor." https://fossa.com/blog/business-source-license-requirements-provisions-history/ https://fossa.com/blog/business-source-license-requirements-...
  • zuntaruk 2y ago
    Really appreciate the references here. I usually forgot some of the diner details on stuff like this
• yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  Publishing the source code makes it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software but that code is under the Business Source License, which is not an open source license. (By way of example: The source code for Windows has been leaked several times, including on github, and MS made it available to various parties over the years, but I think we can agree that it is not open source.)
  • zuntaruk 2y ago
    Thanks for the clarification!