I have read the link to the shor version and this part is precisely the issue: > So I chose the Apache License version 2 with Common Clause as a license, which

I have read the link to the shor version and this part is precisely the issue: > So I chose the Apache License version 2 with Common Clause as a license, which means that n8n was not an OSI-approved open-source project. > When I launched n8n, I called it “open-source” (note the quotation marks), and everywhere I mentioned that it uses Apache License version 2 with Common Clause, to make it clear. You will draw anger if you try to dilute the term "open source". When it comes to monetizing projects by offering them as a service, I would much prefer the BSL shared-source approach that automatically transitions into a true open source license after a fixed ammount of time instead of an OSI licence tainted with a CC so it is no longer OSI aprooved, neither in spirit nor in writing. A CC tainted licence si no longer open and no longer free as in freedom respecting. And without a fallback to an open license after a time, it will be tainted forever and therefore useless to the open and free ecosystem.