4 ms·

Would you rather they just keep their source completely closed then? I just don’t understand the criticism of a company transparently acting in its best intere

• koolba 3y ago
  They could just as easily word the press release ETL be “… releasing the source code”. “Open Source” has a specific meaning. It’d be like saying “…is now free!” with “free” defined as some price I consider to round to zero. It’s clearly misrepresenting the word which has a specific meaning.
  • orra 3y ago
    '[Old versions] will be open source' would, I think, also be a fair description. Right now it's source available proprietary freeware; in three and a half years it (specifically, the now-current version) will be open source. For this reason, I think the Business Source License (BSL) (with an Open Source Change License) is less nefarious than the Server Side Public License (SSPL).
• dmm 3y ago
  > Would you rather they just keep their source completely closed then? I just want them to stop using deceptive language. > I just don’t understand the criticism of a company transparently acting in its best interest (in what I would consider to be a completely reasonable way). They are lying in order to benefit from the good will and legitimacy that open source brings.
• cxr 3y ago
  > Would you rather they just keep their source completely closed then? What you are doing right now is a pretty transparent motte-and-bailey <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy> Don't do that.