3 ms·
No one I know of treats MSVS or Atlassian or whatever is under SCSL as open source. Confluent was treated and used as open source and that changed.
by anilgulecha 8y ago
No one I know of treats MSVS or Atlassian or whatever is under SCSL as open source.
Confluent was treated and used as open source and that changed.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- eesmith 8y agoI understand that it changed. But if there is a "wink, wink", who is it supposed to be for? For those who knew it was F/OSS? If so, it's not very effective, since they know the difference, and the text is clear that about why it's not likely to be considered F/OSS by the OSF, FSF, or Debian. Or is it a "wink, wink" to those who didn't know? In which case, don't the many other community-but-not-F/OSS licenses mean that Confluent is being consistent with what others do? AS someone who hasn't used Confluent but knows about issues related to F/OSS licensing and the difficulties of getting sufficient funding for developing F/OSS software, the explanation was pretty much what I expected for a company switching to an open core model from one which was all open source. So, why might it be a "wink, wink"? That's likely my stumbling block in understanding your g'parent comment.