4 ms·
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.
by ricardobeat 1mo 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 1mo agoGood 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 1mo ago> BUSL is OSI-approved Of course it isn‘t.
- ghaff 1mo agoI 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 1mo agohttps://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 1mo agoI'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.