|
|
|
|
|
|
by EvanAnderson
884 days ago
|
|
|
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. [0] https://opensource.org/osd/ |
|
|