3 ms·
It’s absolutely open source - and completely free for commercial use. That license simply encumbers that specific functionality from resale. I don’t want anyone
by numlocked 2y ago
It’s absolutely open source - and completely free for commercial use. That license simply encumbers that specific functionality from resale. I don’t want anyone selling a SaaS version for profit (if someone wants to do that, they can contact me and we can talk about it).
- quectophoton 2y agoNothing wrong with making source-available or open core software. But saying it's open source when its license does not follow OSI's definition is confusing at best, or misleading at worst. OSI doesn't have a monopoly on the term, but that's the generally accepted definition (at least IME).
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 2y agoFwiw I thought open source meant the source was available. "FOSS" or "MIT" mean do whatever you want with it
- croes 2y agohttps://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd