5 ms·

N8n.io is not open source. It even says so on the landing page. Edit: the article has since been updated

• janober 6y ago
  Yes that is correct. It is not "OSI approved open-source" it is rather https://faircode.io/ https://faircode.io/ licensed instead which is similar but not the same.
• OJFord 6y ago
  The article doesn't claim it is, submission has just changed the title from: > Fair-Code Automation with n8n.io
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• berkay 6y ago
  "Apache 2.0 with Commons Clause" They are free to choose whatever license works for them but this reference to Apache 2.0 is problematic.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • gls2ro 6y ago
    Why is it problematic to reference Apache 2.0? I am curios as I read some resources about various OSS licenses and after I was thinking that Apache 2.0 license is a good one.
    • detaro 6y ago
      It's not problematic to reference Apache 2.0, it's a fine license. I assume what berkay is talking about is this wording of "<existing license> with Commons Clause" - e.g. the Apache foundation has explicitly requested that this not be done (which the creators of the Commons Clause conveniently ignore), because it changes what the license means a lot and sounds like it's an official variant of the license. Apache only wants if any "Apache 2.0 with addons" licenses if they give more rights to the recipient, not less.
      • gls2ro 6y ago
        ah got it. thanks for the clarity. I remember that I read some things about mixing Apache 2.0 with other restrictions (like Commons Clause in this context) and a lot of debates about the wording of such mix.
• dang 6y ago
  We've updated the title above to match.