[relatedtitle]

I think calling it "Open-source" is misleading considering its license.

[mellosouls]

Agree, and it's explicitly declared as not open source in its own terms, so I presume a mistake in the posting here. Title here should be changed I think.

For anybody interested a summary of "Business Source" terms here:

https://fossa.com/blog/business-source-license-requirements-...

[ozymandias1337]

Its open-source as in OSINT

[jszymborski]

This is almost certainly best described as "source-available"

[NewJazz]

Eh, we could get into how to best explain the Business Source License. Not saying source available is wrong, but I'd say the term is incomplete.

[ozymandias1337]

Perhaps "source-curious" should suffice.

[skeptrune]

Agree, we call it "source-available" everywhere. If we missed a spot, I will change it