Title says "open source", but the Business Source License (BSL) is not an Open Source Initiative (OSI) approved open-source license.

▲

taylorsatula a day ago | parent | next [-]

Fixed! BSL (to my understanding) is a copy of the license and its a 'hashicorp document' so it had their title on it.

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.

▲

api a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The correct term for things like BSL is “source available.”

▲

CamperBob2 a day ago | parent [-]

The "correct term" for things like BSL is whatever they want to call it, as long as no trademarks are being infringed.

	▲	jamesbelchamber 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They could call it a banana but then everyone would be expecting a curved yellow thing. Words and phrases have shared meanings, BSL doesn't conform to the meaning we've attached to open source.

▲

shevy-java a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I see this more and more used. It seems companies want to fake stuff now, aka claiming to be open source when they are not.

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.

▲

ProofHouse 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Meta leading the charge. Tencent just tried to do it this week. People need to to call them on it and AI ‘influencers’ never do, quite the opposite actually

▲

taylorsatula a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

(As I said above I changed to an AGPL earlier today but I'll speak to my BSL logic)

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.

▲

nawtagain a day ago | parent [-]

Totally fair - but just call it Source Available then.

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.

	▲	hugo1789 19 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Could you please stop that? First it is not true. "Open Source" has nothing to do with the "Open Source Initiative" it existed long before. Second you are making people keep their source closed (not available) which is not a good thing.
	▲	eadwu a day ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		"Open Source has a specific definition and this license does not conform to that definition." 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.
	▲	taylorsatula a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That’s fair. It’s OSI now but I get what you’re saying broadly.

▲

skeledrew a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> already soul-sent to the big tech bros

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.

	▲	aeon_ai a day ago \| parent [-]
		Same. 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

▲

CamperBob2 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

popalchemist a day ago | parent [-]

Open source has an accepted and well understood meaning to developers; when people use the term to mean something other than that, it is 100% of the time for exploitative purposes, and they know they are being disingenuous.

▲

CamperBob2 a day ago | parent [-]

I've used the term for 25+ years to describe my own source-included free software projects, and I'll thank you (and OSI) for not policing my language. No trademark? No standing. Choose other crusades.

▲

popalchemist a day ago | parent | next [-]

Overreaction much? Nobody is policing. Your failure to recognize the meaning of a word - like any other - is just going to harm you due to your own ignorance of its ramifications.

	▲	CamperBob2 a day ago \| parent [-]
		(Shrug) As you will note at the top of the thread, williamstein is policing. All I'm doing is pointing out that the policeman has no badge, no gun, and no uniform, and that their cruiser looks suspiciously like a '92 Crown Victoria with black and white spray paint and a spotlight from Cabela's.

▲

tingletech a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I think they literally coined and defined the term over 25 years ago.

▲

CamperBob2 a day ago | parent [-]

That's not how it works. They're entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own dictionary.

▲

PaulDavisThe1st a day ago | parent | next [-]

When you combine two words into a fundamentally novel phrase, you are not expressing an opinion, you are contributing to the global (or in this case, anglophone) dictionary.

▲

hollerith a day ago | parent | prev [-]

So if you were to write that you are not in the habit of stealing from children, you might have your own idiosyncratic definition of "steal" or "child"?

▲

CamperBob2 a day ago | parent [-]

Well, I certainly can't argue with that, um... logic.

Meanwhile, if anyone is entitled to the distinction of having "coined" the "fundamentally novel" phrase, it's a guy named Robert Steele who publicized the term "open source intelligence" in 1990 and organized the First International Symposium on Open Source Solutions in 1992.

▲

hollerith a day ago | parent [-]

The phrase was first applied to software by the drafters of the Open Source Definition.

▲

CamperBob2 a day ago | parent [-]

Be that as it may, it's a generic phrase, as evinced by its prior usage in other fields like intelligence and journalism. Lacking a trademark, OSI has zero authority to word-police everyone else. No amount of plugging their ears and chanting lalalala will change the fact that OSI does not own exclusive rights to the phrase "open source." Not with respect to software, not with respect to anything else.

The author of the project in this article is perfectly within their rights to use the term, and the rest of us know very well what they mean by it.

	▲	hollerith a day ago \| parent [-]
		"Steal" and "child" likewise lack any trademark protection. So, suppose I accuse you of stealing from children, then when you protest, I reply that the meaning I give those 2 words might not be the meaning most people have, but that is fine because no one owns the exclusive rights to those 2 words.