3 ms·
Oh please. I am not saying they're required to be open source. I'm not saying they shouldn't be shared source. I'm simply saying they shouldn't lie about being
by tedivm 3y ago
Oh please.
I am not saying they're required to be open source. I'm not saying they shouldn't be shared source. I'm simply saying they shouldn't lie about being open source. If CodeCov had the exact same license with the exact same restrictions, but didn't lie in their messaging, I wouldn't be commenting about it.
- pydry 3y agoOh please is exactly what I thought when I read your comment. This is open source. It's entirely within the spirit of the movement. The political imperative to twist the definition comes from tech monopolists, angry at a new wave of licenses that inhibit their ability to profit unhindered. You're getting outraged on their behalf.
- tedivm 3y agoRead the first line of the BSL license- > The Business Source License (this document, or the "License") is not an Open Source license. However, the Licensed Work will eventually be made available under an Open Source License, as stated in this License. The only way you can argue that it's open source is if you're purposefully trying to deceive people.