If you're referring to the post from yesterday, they actually relicensed it as Apache 2.0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45196173

▲

kstrauser 5 days ago | parent [-]

No, I had in mind different recent announcements when companies selected closed licenses that let you look at the code but not actually use it, then bragged about open sourcing their project.

	▲	DetroitThrow 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Announcement title and actual license divergence has made reading these announcements a bit of a chore on HN since you're required now to read the full post. Good on these guys for not open washing their project. And of course it doesn't help the tedium of reading HN that there's 5 very vocal commentators who want to the world to know that "OSI doesn't own the definition of open source", even though when asked will define open source as "can be commercially restricted".