> IANAL but I don't see how it satisfies part 9 of the OSI Definition, or the DFSG. As DannyBee already mentioned, it's also incompatible with other existing open-source licenses. Why do they want to continue calling it "open source"? It sounds like they really just want to be a proprietary database.
They want to charge money and have control as a proprietary database. But they want to keep a label "open source" purely for marketing purposes.
They want to charge money and have control as a proprietary database. But they want to keep a label "open source" purely for marketing purposes.