Generally what's frowned upon is using phrases like "open source" or words like "open" and "free" to describe source-available licenses that are not open source per the Open Source Initiative definition[0] or libre (versus no-cost). There are lot of people (me included) who take a very pedantic view of these terms. Makers of proprietary software sometimes use these terms to unfairly exploit the goodwill associated with actual free/libre and open source software licenses.
A lot of people don't regard BSL-licensed (and other source-available licenses) as much different than any other proprietary license. There will always be the people who object to any proprietary licenses. You'll always offend those people by using a proprietary license. Using precise and correct language with a source-available license like the BSL won't offend those who take open source and free software terminology seriously however.
Corporate bootlickers frown upon developers restricting corporate uses of their software.
The OSI is run by corporations, for corporations, and has successfully run propaganda campaigns to shit on source available licenses purely on the basis of them not being bootlicker enough.
No. There is absolutely nothing wrong with restricting how corporations can use your code. Fuck the OSI.
Some of us in "open source" are also interested in helping independent developers (including arrangements such as worker-owned cooperatives) gain access to the means of production they can also use to make a living from. BSL excludes small/independent/worker-owned orgs, not only the big and exploitative corporations. If everyone moves to BSL then only those who already have access to capital will be able to afford to build software on top of non-free foundations - a gap which widens with time and a kind of "pulling up the ladder behind you" practice deployed at scale
There are other interesting licenses for this issue that exclude exploitative corporate use without cutting out e.g. worker-owned cooperative use [0] but nothing currently in popular use, and these may be less desirable in "exvestment" opportunities such as linux where corporate investment has vastly contributed to public goods with values that are not represented by those corporations own goals and otherwise wouldn't exist given current society
[0] https://anticapitalist.software which encourages free reuse by for-profit (or otherwise) entities in markets, but excludes exploitative use. I just posted the link to discuss.
> 2. The User is one of the following: a. An individual person, laboring for themselves b. A non-profit organization c. An educational institution d. An organization that seeks shared profit for all of its members, and allows non-members to set the cost of their labor
> 3. If the User is an organization with owners, then all owners are workers and all workers are owners with equal equity and/or equal vote.
> 4. If the User is an organization, then the User is not law enforcement or military, or working for or under either.
I think you’re assuming things that I don’t actually believe.
The OSI are scum because of their incessant propaganda against source-available and constant attacks of developers that aren’t being bootlickers.
If a developer wants for their code to be free for corporate use. Fine. If they don’t, also fine.
I am for developers getting paid for their work that they want to be paid for, and if they believe that licensing to corporations differently helps them achieve that, then so be it.
I create source under both open source and source available licenses depending on what it is.
A lot of people don't regard BSL-licensed (and other source-available licenses) as much different than any other proprietary license. There will always be the people who object to any proprietary licenses. You'll always offend those people by using a proprietary license. Using precise and correct language with a source-available license like the BSL won't offend those who take open source and free software terminology seriously however.
[0] https://opensource.org/osd/