When it says "available in open source", is that under the main airbyte repo's licensing [1], hence primarily licensed under the Elastic License v2 and therefore not typically considered open source by many?
Airbyte has previous of advertising their offering as open source while not really being as per the OSD[2]. This has been raised with them previously but without response [3][4]. They've also been extending their use of ELv2, recently moving many of their existing MIT licensed connectors to be ELv2 [5].
I don't personally take issue with the choice of license here, I respect the right to protect your work and choose a license that works for you, I'm just against the misuse of open source wording.
Fans of Free-Software believe the opposite of "closed source" is not "open-source", apparently they believe the opposite is "source available" - but how many people would agree?
The USPTO denied a trademark and service mark for "open-source" to the OSI when they applied: "So “open-source” is not and cannot become a trademark"
Why should a 10-point list of "Debian's Free Software Guidelines" for the union of public domain software + FSF style Free Software define the opposite of "closed-source"?
Why doesn't the OSI focus on it's own trademark:
"OSI Approved License(tm)", a trademark that it actually owns;
rather than forever trying to harass, bully and shame independent that share all of their code but otherwise eschew "free software" and "public domain software"?
The USPTO denied a trademark and service mark for "open-source" to the OSI when they applied: "So “open-source” is not and cannot become a trademark"
> https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
Why should a 10-point list of "Debian's Free Software Guidelines" for the union of public domain software + FSF style Free Software define the opposite of "closed-source"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...
Why should a "Marketing Campaign for for Free Software" dictate what is the opposite of "closed-source" software?
https://web.archive.org/web/19991013094510/http://opensource...
Why doesn't the OSI focus on it's own trademark: "OSI Approved License(tm)", a trademark that it actually owns; rather than forever trying to harass, bully and shame independent that share all of their code but otherwise eschew "free software" and "public domain software"?