[Kerrick]

That means it's zero-cost and source available, not open source. As it's your software that's your choice, but please don't abuse the term "open source" to describe it. It's no more "open source" than, say, DaVinci Resolve is.

[blacklightpy]

> It's no more "open source" than, say, DaVinci Resolve is.

DaVinci Resolve is not source available. Anytype does not restrict you from forking the code as long as it is non-commercial. And it also lets you fork the code for commercial use, if you take their permission.

So it is simply a non-commercial open source license, with permission required for commercial use. Sure, not OSI Approved License™, but certainly "open source". If this was not "open source", neither would be GNU GPL, because it isn't permissive enough.

This is no different from Qt's dual license except that GPL allows commercial use too. Or, like Creative Commons NC licenses, but for software.

[daniel_riel]

Amen!

Open-Source is a generic term. It's the opposite of "closed-source".

The OSI is on the record on this: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

The only people who want to push the whole "The OSI's version of Free Software" defines "open-source" rather than "OSI Approved License™" are the Anti-Property GPL folks that never liked the term "open source" anyway, the trolls that want to force other people to work for free, and the people at the OSI