4 ms·

I wouldn't consider this open source, the license [1] appears to put very non-open terms on the use, modification and distribution of the project. [1] https://

I wouldn't consider this open source, the license [1] appears to put very non-open terms on the use, modification and distribution of the project. [1] https://github.com/Dokploy/dokploy/blob/be56ba046cb3b2b8676d5f8020cf56844d601730/LICENSE.MD https://github.com/Dokploy/dokploy/blob/be56ba046cb3b2b8676d...

input_sh 2y ago
OSI would: https://opensource.org/license/apache-2-0 https://opensource.org/license/apache-2-0 Edit: I'm wrong, see below.
- 255kb 2y ago
  It's Apache 2.0 + custom clauses excluding any commercial/for-profit usage.
  - input_sh 2y ago
    My mistake, I should've paid more attention.
- mhitza 2y ago
  The Apache License is, however the additional terms the author has made to the license make it not open source; because the additional terms supersede the Apache License. It looks like Apache Licensed but its the BSL (ElasticSearch, Redis, Mongodb license path) in disguise. Author should have used AGPL if he wanted to make a product that isn't easily/eagerly SaaSified.
- megadal 2y ago
  It probably was open source before the license was modified to prevent commercial use, which is not open source.
- ssddanbrown 2y ago
  I've added extra explanation in a discussion I've opened on the project: https://github.com/Dokploy/dokploy/discussions/3 https://github.com/Dokploy/dokploy/discussions/3
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]