3 ms·

It's still open source. You can self-host the latest code so long as you're not commercializing it. BSL just adds two additional clauses: - You cannot offer a

It's still open source. You can self-host the latest code so long as you're not commercializing it. BSL just adds two additional clauses: - You cannot offer a commercial version of Sentry’s service (the license grant restriction) - After 36 months, the code becomes Apache-2.0 licensed For those who argue this isn't permissive enough, I'd love to hear the measures you took for your FOSS project to become self-sustainable.

mananaysiempre 5y ago
Once the declared period has passed, yes, it’ll be open source, though I’d still say that “X is open source” and “N-years-old versions of X are open source” is a distinction worth maintaining. However, AFAIK there isn’t a single version of a single BSL-licensed project (... that I’m interested in?) that has been released as open source, so far, so while I want to assume good faith from their authors, I’ll suspend my judgment on that part until the open-source release pledge becomes business-relevant for them. I’ve written elsewhere on HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27496025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27496025) why I consider the essence of open source (as defined in the OSD) to be the author saying something akin to “I will not use the legal tools of copyright to stop anyone else from doing what I am doing with my stuff”. The terms of the AGPL or even the Open Watcom license (however much I’d prefer to avoid them) qualify; the (by almost all measures more permissive) terms of the BSL or even the Unsplash license do not. That (and not a sentimental attachment to the OSD) is why I protest a meaning of “open source” that would allow conditions “discriminat[ing] against fields of endeavour” such as those you listed. Everything the above link says about how my unwillingness to accept this dilution of terminology does not imply I’m passing a moral judgment on those releasing the software also applies here. I believe this makes your last sentence irrelevant. That said, my original motivation for the “essence” above is a belief that people ought to be able to study software and do whatever they want with the knowledge. If we take the delayed open-source release pledge at face value, the BSL then occupies a curious borderline position between satisfying and not satisfying this desideratum in the same way that delayed open access does. I’m ... not sure what I think about either, in general (as opposed to the specific practice of applying the term “open source” to the former). This is part of why I’m suspending my judgment regarding this part—if, for example, the industry eventually converges on the delay being practically infinite, as copyright and patent terms already are, my mental resources are better spent elsewhere. Also, hopefully, in the intervening time smarter people than me will say things that I’ll be able to steal.
- prophesi 5y ago
  > Once the declared period has passed, yes, it’ll be open source No, it's open source software on day 1. It becomes FOSS after the allotted time. And the post you were commenting on also mentioned the need to find a solution to let FOSS become economically feasible in the age of oppressive copyright law. I too am looking for a solution to this as a proponent of FOSS, while also doing the best I can politically to declaw copyright law in my region.

mananaysiempre 5y ago

Once the declared period has passed, yes, it’ll be open source, though I’d still say that “X is open source” and “N-years-old versions of X are open source” is a distinction worth maintaining. However, AFAIK there isn’t a single version of a single BSL-licensed project (... that I’m interested in?) that has been released as open source, so far, so while I want to assume good faith from their authors, I’ll suspend my judgment on that part until the open-source release pledge becomes business-relevant for them. I’ve written elsewhere on HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27496025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27496025) why I consider the essence of open source (as defined in the OSD) to be the author saying something akin to “I will not use the legal tools of copyright to stop anyone else from doing what I am doing with my stuff”. The terms of the AGPL or even the Open Watcom license (however much I’d prefer to avoid them) qualify; the (by almost all measures more permissive) terms of the BSL or even the Unsplash license do not. That (and not a sentimental attachment to the OSD) is why I protest a meaning of “open source” that would allow conditions “discriminat[ing] against fields of endeavour” such as those you listed. Everything the above link says about how my unwillingness to accept this dilution of terminology does not imply I’m passing a moral judgment on those releasing the software also applies here. I believe this makes your last sentence irrelevant. That said, my original motivation for the “essence” above is a belief that people ought to be able to study software and do whatever they want with the knowledge. If we take the delayed open-source release pledge at face value, the BSL then occupies a curious borderline position between satisfying and not satisfying this desideratum in the same way that delayed open access does. I’m ... not sure what I think about either, in general (as opposed to the specific practice of applying the term “open source” to the former). This is part of why I’m suspending my judgment regarding this part—if, for example, the industry eventually converges on the delay being practically infinite, as copyright and patent terms already are, my mental resources are better spent elsewhere. Also, hopefully, in the intervening time smarter people than me will say things that I’ll be able to steal.

prophesi 5y ago
> Once the declared period has passed, yes, it’ll be open source No, it's open source software on day 1. It becomes FOSS after the allotted time. And the post you were commenting on also mentioned the need to find a solution to let FOSS become economically feasible in the age of oppressive copyright law. I too am looking for a solution to this as a proponent of FOSS, while also doing the best I can politically to declaw copyright law in my region.