> I'm curious to see if some vocal people here will still not be satisfied with anything short of a OSI-approved FOSS license.
I don't have a problem with the terms of their license. Use whatever license you want — just don't call it "open source"!
From the blog post... This is problematic:
> open-source in spirit
It ain't. It is firmly in the spirit of "source available" licenses, which have a decades-long history and almost all of which do the same thing this license does: impose a field-of-use restriction to limit commercial competition.
By corrupting the term "open source", they are leeching off of the goodwill created by the Open Source movement, and they shouldn't expect people to stop complaining about it until they stop.
I don't have a problem with the terms of their license. Use whatever license you want — just don't call it "open source"!
From the blog post... This is problematic:
> open-source in spirit
It ain't. It is firmly in the spirit of "source available" licenses, which have a decades-long history and almost all of which do the same thing this license does: impose a field-of-use restriction to limit commercial competition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
By corrupting the term "open source", they are leeching off of the goodwill created by the Open Source movement, and they shouldn't expect people to stop complaining about it until they stop.