I personally prefer Free Software (FSF-approved) or Open Source (OSI-approved) licenses, but I also agree that there is a place for other licenses. It's better that there's space for kinda-open, rather than it being open vs completely closed repositories.

I've previously worked at a company using an "open source" license (Elastic, with the ELv2) and have enjoyed having to explain the difference to folks between what it meant to be "open source" vs "Open Source", and the fact that a lot of folks generally don't understand the difference and some of the nuance. Mentioning the BuSL was because it's something a lot more folks may be aware of, i.e. given Hashicorp's recent relicense (as with other companies in recent years)

Sustainability is hard, and having different ways to describe this is good! But it's a lot harder when people don't understand why something calling itself "open source" when it's "but you can't run it if you're a company" is bad

> I also agree that there is a place for other licenses. It's better that there's space for kinda-open, rather than it being open vs completely closed repositories.

That's good to hear, sincere apologies for assuming otherwise. There are a lot of folks on HN who take a much more extreme view there, and I seem to have incorrectly conflated them in the "open source" vs "Open Source" debate.

> having to explain the difference to folks between what it meant to be "open source" vs "Open Source", and the fact that a lot of folks generally don't understand the difference and some of the nuance

This speaks to the core naming problem though: the original OSI folks should have picked a better term! They thought "Free Software" wasn't a good term in part due to the gratis vs freedom confusion (totally agreed here), and yet they picked another equally-confusing term to use instead, that had a pre-existing generic meaning which wasn't related to specific license terms in any way.