3 ms·
the surreal docs should not say "surreal is open source", it's source-available under the BSL
by llimllib 4mo ago
the surreal docs should not say "surreal is open source", it's source-available under the BSL
- redwood 4mo agoI'd love to see the OSI mature it's license taxonomy for 2026
- limagnolia 4mo agoThe OSI definition is just fine for software licenses. It doesn't need to "mature". The BSL is not compatible with the principles and concept of open source software.
- redwood 4mo agoI disagree. Current posture makes it nearly impossible for European companies to build software centric open source businesses.
- limagnolia 4mo agoWhy do you think the OSI should be concerned with European companies and their business models? Why would European companies have a more difficult time building software centric open source businesses than companies in other countries?
- nkmnz 4mo agoWhy should European companies (or anyone else) be concerned with definitions made up by OSI?
- limagnolia 4mo agoBecause the OSI is responsible for the creation of the term as a concept (Yes, I know you might be able to find one or two instances of some one saying "open source" in the context of software before the OSI came along, but the vast majority of usage and the ideas behind it came about because of the OSI). More importantly than that- because the OSI definition is a darn good one and the BSL is a garbage license that restricts essential freedoms. The OSI definition ensures a standard set of minimum freedoms exist. Namely, the BSL makes it difficult for a fork to exist, brings additional restrictions that could need additional legal review, and prevents users from seeking alternative suppliers, locking them into an ecosystem that may not or may cease to meet their needs.
- redbluered 4mo ago[dead]