4 ms·

Listen, you can (and should!) use whatever license you feel works best for your business. But the trickery around calling the BSL "Open Source" (now "open-sour

Listen, you can (and should!) use whatever license you feel works best for your business. But the trickery around calling the BSL "Open Source" (now "open-source") in the blog post is a very bad look. The BSL license - in your own repos [0] - has this text: > The Business Source License (this document, or the "License") is not an Open Source license. The "change date" is 2026-06-31 and the BSL allows one, at that time, to re-license under a real open source license. What you're doing amounts to a pre-announcement of open sourcing something 3 years from now. To say it's "now open-source" as the blog post currently claims is quite misleading. [0] https://github.com/codecov/codecov-api/blob/main/LICENSE#L25 https://github.com/codecov/codecov-api/blob/main/LICENSE#L25

daniel_riel 3y ago
Perhaps the real trickery is the OSI's shady lawyer led campaign after they were denied the trademark on open-source(tm) https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php/ https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... And after they had admitted that: > While there is agreement on the broad term "open source" as meaning approximately what is captured in the Open Source Definition the term has, ironically, now become so popular that it has lost some of its precision. https://web.archive.org/web/20060411080543/http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.php https://web.archive.org/web/20060411080543/http://www.openso... To pressure developers that believe in "open-source" as in the opposite of "closed-source", to also accept their entire anti-developer property "Free Software" ideology.