> No licensee or downstream recipient may use the Software (including any modified or derivative versions) to directly compete with the original Licensor by offering it to third parties as a hosted, managed, or Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) product or cloud service where the primary value of the service is the functionality of the Software itself.

No thanks. These “almost-but-not-quite-FOSS” licenses are a blight.

▲

nick-sta 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't see the issue - the creator is reserving the right to create their own paid hosted version?

▲

EvanAnderson 2 hours ago | parent [-]

That's absolutely fine for them, but they shouldn't call it "Open-source" and "Fully open source" (like they do on the linked page).

This software is source-available. Open Source licenses don't discriminate on the basis use of the software.

Using the term Open Source for license like this is dishonest. It seeks to profit from the goodwill from actual Open Source software.

▲

gardnr 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I appreciate your view but consensus reality does not agree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

▲

EvanAnderson 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I can link to community-edited articles, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition

We make the consensus reality. I'm part of the faction that wants this particular reality, so I advocate for it.

	▲	eudoxus 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		OSD !== Open Source. All OSD is Open Source, not all Open Source is OSD. You are free to disagree, but the OSI has chosen (more accurately forced to choose) very explicitly to only define and trademark OSD. There's really not much more to the conversation then that.

▲

prohobo 36 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe you're right, but FSL/BSL is arguably "more open source" than GPL. We all know GPL is a poison pill that kills commercial use, while FSL/BSL just blocks competitors from stealing your app.

▲

ptman 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Some will argue that it is Open Source. But Open Source came from commercial interests against Free Software.

It's clearly not free software, since the user freedom is restricted.

It's not libre, since that also refers to freedoms.

It's not really Open Source.

Source-Available has been used to describe this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

▲

rock_artist 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The confusing thing for me related to that was Try Free which leads me to look for pricing. But with only Try free I get suspicious of even private or small team.

If it’s free for use. Try is a confusing term.

Off topic, I’d really wish any service or product with tiers would have pricing in a discoverable way.