3 ms·

The software seems to be licensed under the BSL license [1] which is not open source. Please correct the title to avoid misleading headlines. [1] https://githu

The software seems to be licensed under the BSL license [1] which is not open source. Please correct the title to avoid misleading headlines. [1] https://github.com/akaunting/akaunting/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/akaunting/akaunting/blob/master/LICENSE.t...

Timshel 2y ago
I was not familiar with the BSL license. It's interesting that it will "automatically" switch to GPLv3 in 4 years (as specified in the license). Would be nice if more closed source software were released with such a license. Edit: the production Use Grant are atrocious : > You may make production use of the Licensed Work, provided you do not use it in any of the following ways: (1) Use the Licensed Work with a total of more than two users or one company or one thousand invoices.
- graemep 2y ago
  If you have a single user you can use desktop software (I use Gnucash myself). If you have more than two users you cannot use it in production. SO it only useful if you have exactly two users. The SSPL seems far close to being open than the BSL.
  - jstummbillig 2y ago
    It's also useful as a single user if you prefer it over using desktop software, for the same reasons/tradeoff that it always is.
- sofixa 2y ago
  > I was not familiar with the BSL license. > It's interesting that it will "automatically" switch to GPLv3 in 4 years (as specified in the license). > Would be nice if more closed source software were released with such a license. And it would be nice if there was a better term than "source available" to describe licenses such as BSL and SSPL, and ideally to differentiate usage grants. GitHub project under BSL with the above very constraining usage grant vs GitLab project BSL with "do whatever you want just don't host to sell to others" vs code with no license thrown on a .zip on an FTP are all "source available".
Zandikar 2y ago
[flagged]
- chakspak 2y ago
  BSL is not an Open Source license, as it does not meet the requirements of the Open Source Definition. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
  - ffsm8 2y ago
    For the lazy Unlike open source licenses, the BSL prohibits the licensed code from being used in production — without explicit approval from the licensor. Especially the (1) of the originally linked licence will make it pretty much unusable beyond the smallest deployments (limited to <1k invoices)
boplicity 2y ago
The license basically seems to be a "demo" license, considering the limit of 1,000 invoices or 2 users. Not a bad idea, really. Imagine a world where every company released their source code like this! Things would be very different. It's not really "free" but is also very much "open source," as the source is completely available.
- commoner 2y ago
  With those restrictions, Akaunting is definitely not open source, but it is source-available.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software is explicitly not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software ; there is a difference.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
prerok 2y ago
It's interesting that their site explicitly states it as open source. I think the problem is that they don't understand the term. Open source is a legal term, with many side meanings, while they seem to be referring only to the fact that the source code is published and therefore is in the open.

Timshel 2y ago

I was not familiar with the BSL license. It's interesting that it will "automatically" switch to GPLv3 in 4 years (as specified in the license). Would be nice if more closed source software were released with such a license. Edit: the production Use Grant are atrocious : > You may make production use of the Licensed Work, provided you do not use it in any of the following ways: (1) Use the Licensed Work with a total of more than two users or one company or one thousand invoices.

graemep 2y ago
If you have a single user you can use desktop software (I use Gnucash myself). If you have more than two users you cannot use it in production. SO it only useful if you have exactly two users. The SSPL seems far close to being open than the BSL.
- jstummbillig 2y ago
  It's also useful as a single user if you prefer it over using desktop software, for the same reasons/tradeoff that it always is.
sofixa 2y ago
> I was not familiar with the BSL license. > It's interesting that it will "automatically" switch to GPLv3 in 4 years (as specified in the license). > Would be nice if more closed source software were released with such a license. And it would be nice if there was a better term than "source available" to describe licenses such as BSL and SSPL, and ideally to differentiate usage grants. GitHub project under BSL with the above very constraining usage grant vs GitLab project BSL with "do whatever you want just don't host to sell to others" vs code with no license thrown on a .zip on an FTP are all "source available".

Zandikar 2y ago

[flagged]

chakspak 2y ago
BSL is not an Open Source license, as it does not meet the requirements of the Open Source Definition. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- ffsm8 2y ago
  For the lazy Unlike open source licenses, the BSL prohibits the licensed code from being used in production — without explicit approval from the licensor. Especially the (1) of the originally linked licence will make it pretty much unusable beyond the smallest deployments (limited to <1k invoices)

boplicity 2y ago

The license basically seems to be a "demo" license, considering the limit of 1,000 invoices or 2 users. Not a bad idea, really. Imagine a world where every company released their source code like this! Things would be very different. It's not really "free" but is also very much "open source," as the source is completely available.

commoner 2y ago
With those restrictions, Akaunting is definitely not open source, but it is source-available.
yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software is explicitly not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software ; there is a difference.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

prerok 2y ago

It's interesting that their site explicitly states it as open source. I think the problem is that they don't understand the term. Open source is a legal term, with many side meanings, while they seem to be referring only to the fact that the source code is published and therefore is in the open.