3 ms·
I think "open source (but not really, there's a small restriction)" sums it up better than "source available", so I can understand framing it that way. OTOH, t
by swsieber 7y ago
I think "open source (but not really, there's a small restriction)" sums it up better than "source available", so I can understand framing it that way.
OTOH, this is likely to never make it into distro repos anywhere. I also wonder if the author is driving to make a business out of it.
So I'd make three points:
1) It does affect distribution
2) It otherwise doesn't materially affect how I would use it
3) It seems a little like asking for contributions to a proprietary project.
- d4mi3n 7y agoSource Available is pretty sweet if you have a paid product you'd like to do detailed audits on. Especially in regulated environments (finance, medicine, etc). Many enterprises prefer a paid service, as such contracts usually come with somebody assuming liability for data on the system and being around to resolve problems you'd otherwise need to distract an in-house team with.
- swsieber 7y agoI agree. My point is more of "source available" undersells the freedoms it does give you, while "open source" just barely over-represents them, so I can understand framing it as "basically open source".