4 ms·

You might also be interested in the O'Saasy license (https://osaasy.dev/ https://osaasy.dev/) which is in the similar vein, but simpler. HashiCorp switched to

by mihaelm 28d ago

You might also be interested in the O'Saasy license (https://osaasy.dev/ https://osaasy.dev/) which is in the similar vein, but simpler. HashiCorp switched to BUSL license for their products/tools when they already had substantial market share, and they still faced MPL-licensed forks (Terraform -> OpenTofu, Vault -> OpenBao). It will be interesting to see in a few years if those tools notably cut into their share. I'm not sure a new tool with a BUSL license will get adoption as easily.

ricardobeat 28d ago
Looks nice. Two main differences: - BUSL is OSI-approved and listed in SPDX, so corporate lawyers won't be scared away by it: https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html - With BUSL the restriction is revenue-based. You can still create competing products, but would have to pay a licensing fee.
- mihaelm 28d ago
  Good points, the second is very "dual-licensing" in nature. BUSL is certainly the more "mature" option and there's a higher likelihood people came across it in the wild.
- Tomte 28d ago
  > BUSL is OSI-approved Of course it isn‘t.
  - ghaff 28d ago
    I was a bit surprised to read that there was an OSI-approved license with usage restrictions and wondered if I had missed the memo. But you seem to be correct and it's not OSI-approved and therefore is not generally considered to be an open source license.
- xorcist 28d ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License: Debian FSG compatible No FSF approved No OSI approved No GPL compatible No Copyleft No
  - ricardobeat 27d ago
    I'm sorry - what I meant to say is that it is listed in the SPDX (https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html) as a recognized license. The revenue gate means it will never be considered an open-source license by the OSI.

by mihaelm 28d ago

ricardobeat 28d ago

Looks nice. Two main differences: - BUSL is OSI-approved and listed in SPDX, so corporate lawyers won't be scared away by it: https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html - With BUSL the restriction is revenue-based. You can still create competing products, but would have to pay a licensing fee.

mihaelm 28d ago
Good points, the second is very "dual-licensing" in nature. BUSL is certainly the more "mature" option and there's a higher likelihood people came across it in the wild.
Tomte 28d ago
> BUSL is OSI-approved Of course it isn‘t.
- ghaff 28d ago
  I was a bit surprised to read that there was an OSI-approved license with usage restrictions and wondered if I had missed the memo. But you seem to be correct and it's not OSI-approved and therefore is not generally considered to be an open source license.
xorcist 28d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License: Debian FSG compatible No FSF approved No OSI approved No GPL compatible No Copyleft No
- ricardobeat 27d ago
  I'm sorry - what I meant to say is that it is listed in the SPDX (https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html) as a recognized license. The revenue gate means it will never be considered an open-source license by the OSI.