FSL and BSL belong on any list of false-promise licenses:
They are not open source. They are restrictive source-available licenses dressed up with “open” language.
Reading the code is not enough. If users cannot freely run, use, or build on the software because of field-of-use or competition restrictions, the software is not open source.
Marketing it as “open source” or even putting “open” in your name is misleading twice: first in the license, then in the messaging.
#opensource #fauxopensource #license
FSL
The Functional Source License (FSL) is a source-available license that converts to Apache 2.0 or MIT after two years.fsl.software
isithran reshared this.
Max Mehl
in reply to Alexandre Dulaunoy • • •And it's made worse by the fact that BSL as an identifier is actually describing another license (boost software license, OSI approved), which is why the Business Source License has been given the SPDX ID BUSL.
More than once I had people coming to me saying that Business Source License isn't as issue because BSL is marked as OSI approved on the SPDX license list 🙄
Alexandre Dulaunoy reshared this.
Pieter Lexis
in reply to Alexandre Dulaunoy • • •> FSL provides everything a developer needs to use and learn from your software without harmful free-riding.
We have a license for that at home in the form of agpl