4 ms·

You are absolutely right. I just changed the license to ELv2.

• throawayonthe 7mo ago
  if you want to call it open source, why not consider AGPL?
• maxloh 7mo ago
  Nice change!
• bilekas 7mo ago
  ELv2 is not open source either.
  • guelo 7mo ago
    It is not OSI® Open Source Definition™ approved, but it is open source for the common use of the term.
    • TimeBearingDown 7mo ago
      The accepted term is "source available". Restrictions on usage type are not commonly accepted as open source by any community that I'm aware of.
      • guelo 7mo ago
        That is according to OSI. OSI does not get to dictate the english language.
    • bilekas 7mo ago
      I don't say it to be pedantic about the term, but there are hard restrictions on usage of this tool in commercial environments.. So it's important people are aware and don't just assume it's an open source.
      • guelo 7mo ago
        Right. OSI tried to use their authority to make it seem like AWS's strip mining of the open source ecosystem was the moral high ground. HN has a lot of wishful commercial operators who side with AWS. So they use "open source" lower case as a weapon to harass the open source developers. Personally I tend to side with the developers who try to figure out a way to keep their projects viable.
• RobotToaster 7mo ago
  That isn't open source either. As far as I know the most restrictive open source license is the AGPL, with a CLA that allows for commercial dual licensing.
• Imustaskforhelp 7mo ago
  I genuinely recommend putting something like AGPL if you wish to go towards Open Source route.