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