(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.