[japhyr]

What label would you like them to use? What is the accepted name for a middle ground license now? Should they be advertising themselves as a "business source" company rather than an "open source" company?

I don't ask this antagonistically, it's an honest question. I don't think they've shifted so much that they're just a standard company trying to make money off of proprietary software at this point.

"You can host your own service, or you can pay us to host the service, but you can't host the service and charge others for our service" is a business model I'd like to see continue.

[TAForObvReasons]

There's a term for "proprietary projects whose source is available on GitHub", namely "source available". "Open Source" != "source available", and attempts to describe one as the other are clearly attempts to deceive

[nicpottier]

As I recall "Source Available" is a lot worse than what Sentry is proposing. It usually required signing an NDA or jumping through some other hoop in order to get the source. This is much better than that so I don't think it would be properly descriptive.

[ensignavenger]

Shared Source was a term used in the past for proprietary licenses that shared the source. You suggest Business Source, and I would be fine with them using that term- as far as I know it isn't already taken.