[pessimizer]

> Which is fine. But just go closed source, then, and own that, instead of trying to have it both ways.

The opposite of open source isn't closed source, the opposite of open source is restrictive. You're not forced to refuse to let people see the source when you're not open source. You're not forced to eliminate everything that OSI-approved licenses must have if you're not OSI-approved. There are no OSI cops that bust proprietary vendors for using a subset of their characteristics.

Of course it would be better if it were Free software, but it would be better if all software were Free software. They're doing them.

edit: My objection comes when people pretend licenses are open source when they are not OSI-approved and couldn't be. HashiCorp is not claiming to have remained open source: they're now "source-available."