[ognarb]

This is not open source, just take a look at the license.

https://github.com/Dokploy/dokploy/blob/main/LICENSE.MD

[japhyr]

ssddanbrown opened a discussion on the repo laying out the reasons why this is not an open source project.

https://github.com/Dokploy/dokploy/discussions/3

[sbuttgereit]

It's worse than that. The license opens with the standard clause:

"Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License."

But then proceeds to modify the license terms. This makes it definitionally -not- Apache 2 and no amount of word-smithing can get you out of that (appendix?).

There's a certain dishonesty in saying, "hey we're open source Apache" and then demanding a source available "something else". It's not even smart dishonesty... You offer the Apache original terms, but then you have to make it sufficiently clear those aren't really the terms enough that any fool can see this isn't the Apache terms after all.

[lolinder]

Oof. OP, if you wanted to use terms like this you should have just picked BUSL. These "appendixes" were pretty clearly not written by a lawyer, they're redundant with each other (Appendix A includes the same content as Appendix B, just phrased less formally), and adding appendixes to Apache looks at best naive and at worst devious.

[BSDobelix]

>>you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.

That means just the file "LICENSE.MD" is under that Non-Apache License. The rest of the project is something else.