[WoodenChair]

The first sentence of your blog post reads:

"We’re changing the license for some of the open source components of Confluent Platform from Apache 2.0 to the Confluent Community License."

This implies that the components are still open source. However, as you probably know from the open source definition: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated your new license does not qualify as "open source" by the most commonly understood definition because it violates article 6 "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor." Specifically, you're not allowing your software to be used in a capacity similar to how you use it yourself.

Wouldn't it be less disingenuous to write "We’re changing the license for some of the previously open source components of Confluent Platform from Apache 2.0 to our own partially proprietary Confluent Community License." Or maybe instead of partially proprietary, shared source, or choose your own word for not really open source?

Edit: My original comment was based on the original blog post, which has now changed. Props to the author for being responsive to feedback.

[boredandroid]

Sure, I've updated the post so it doesn't imply that we comply with the OSI open source definition.

[jordigh]

Could you be more explicit and say that it means the software isn't "open source"? Complying with OSI's definition of "open source" is what "open source" means. They defined the term, so they have a prerogative on what it means.

"Visible source" might be a good description if you want to call it something, but don't confuse your users with "open" and "community" and other feel-good terms.