3 ms·
When it says "available in open source", is that under the main airbyte repo's licensing [1], hence primarily licensed under the Elastic License v2 and therefor
by ssddanbrown 3y ago
When it says "available in open source", is that under the main airbyte repo's licensing [1], hence primarily licensed under the Elastic License v2 and therefore not typically considered open source by many?
Airbyte has previous of advertising their offering as open source while not really being as per the OSD[2]. This has been raised with them previously but without response [3][4]. They've also been extending their use of ELv2, recently moving many of their existing MIT licensed connectors to be ELv2 [5].
I don't personally take issue with the choice of license here, I respect the right to protect your work and choose a license that works for you, I'm just against the misuse of open source wording.
[1] https://github.com/airbytehq/airbyte/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/airbytehq/airbyte/blob/master/LICENSE
[2] https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
[3] https://github.com/airbytehq/airbyte/issues/9246 https://github.com/airbytehq/airbyte/issues/9246
[4] https://github.com/airbytehq/airbyte/issues/17118 https://github.com/airbytehq/airbyte/issues/17118
[5] https://airbyte.com/blog/update-on-airbytes-license https://airbyte.com/blog/update-on-airbytes-license
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jamietanna 3y agoLooks like the Terraform provider is its own repo which is MIT licensed. I agree with your stance, especially off the back of CodeCov/Sentry in the last few days marketing a non-OSD license as Open Source
- ewan-mclean 3y agoFans of Free-Software believe the opposite of "closed source" is not "open-source", apparently they believe the opposite is "source available" - but how many people would agree? The USPTO denied a trademark and service mark for "open-source" to the OSI when they applied: "So “open-source” is not and cannot become a trademark" > https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php/ https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... Why should a 10-point list of "Debian's Free Software Guidelines" for the union of public domain software + FSF style Free Software define the opposite of "closed-source"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline... Why should a "Marketing Campaign for for Free Software" dictate what is the opposite of "closed-source" software? https://web.archive.org/web/19991013094510/http://opensource.org/for-hackers.html#marketing https://web.archive.org/web/19991013094510/http://opensource... Why doesn't the OSI focus on it's own trademark: "OSI Approved License(tm)", a trademark that it actually owns; rather than forever trying to harass, bully and shame independent that share all of their code but otherwise eschew "free software" and "public domain software"?