|
|
|
|
|
|
by bentlegen
937 days ago
|
|
|
I don’t feel “given you already have a proprietary license, why wouldn’t you just make it freely permissive” needs much explaining. We develop the software; the exclusivity period helps us monetize the work (vs giving it away to someone else who would). I think it’s worth reading the announcement from 2019 when Sentry first switched to BUSL. The original article links to many such pieces. https://blog.sentry.io/relicensing-sentry/ |
|
|
Then release your software under a source available non-compete license with the caveat that it will become open source when you stop working on it. (Basically what you have already done.)
Don't pretend it's FOSS or that it has anything to do with open source because it isn't and it doesn't. You have not made the software open until you have relinquished it to the community at large to do whatever they wish with it. Open source developers dislike this kind of marketing because it muddies the waters of what isn't and isn't free. If someone contributes to your software thinking it's free, you have mislead them to profit off their work. I don't care what you do with your code, but don't mischaracterise it. Don't give big talk about how you "believe in open source" or whatever. Say that you are source-available, and that isn't FOSS, but say no more than that. Especially do not say that you are "The Future of Open Source". That is nothing but a lie an it's obvious why real open source developers giving their time for the public good would take offence to it.
Open source is like charity. Don't call yourself a charity or associate yourself with charity unless you actually are one.