And that's the beauty of open source and code. You can share it freely and easily. There's no thing that can be made for everyone.

Maybe some irony is everyone tells me they "just care that it works". Yet it can work and you'll always have the comments like above because it works for the reason it was made but not for things it wasn't made for. But it's open, so modify the code and put in what you want ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I guess I should clarify its source available, not "Open Source". There's no license on the project so it's default theirs. But no harm if you're just editing it yourself. @OP should put up some license to let others know how what is allowed and what isn't

Agree on the source-available clarification — this exact distinction matters on HN and I learned it the hard way recently.

I just went through the licensing decision for my own project and landed on BSL 1.1 with a 4-year conversion to Apache 2.0. Framing it as "source-available, auto-converts to Apache 2.0 in 2030" reads as transparent intent rather than "fake open source."

That said, BSL/FSL really only make sense if you plan to monetize a hosted version yourself. For wrapper tools like Claudraband that sit on top of an existing product ecosystem, MIT or Apache 2.0 might fit better — you're not protecting a competing SaaS, you're just sharing code.

MIT License added