[ignoramous]

> allows us to maintain the benefits of open development while avoiding the pitfalls of unrestricted open-source licensing, ensuring we can sustainably develop and support

"allow us", "ensuring we can" ...

You misunderstand OSS, which is about "allow all", and "ensuring all of us can". Of course, the OSS model doesn't always work, nor do its proponents claim it is the one true way to run a project. Though, they do get irked when source-available licenses try to pass off as "almost OSS" but aren't quite.

[auggierose]

I wouldn't care too much about what some dudes who don't pay for my software get irked by.

The gp clearly distinguishes open-source and source-available, and I don't think he misunderstands OSS.

[ignoramous]

> I don't think he misunderstands OSS

Perhaps misunderstands source-available:

"At JustDo we make our source code available for transparency and collaboration"

[kelnos]

How so? That's literally the point of source-available licenses: a company using the code can audit it and sometimes, depending on the license fix issues for their own use.

I wouldn't be interested in collaborating with a company on their source-available software (since I'd be doing free work for their profit), but if my company were using their product, and we needed a new feature or bug fix that they weren't going to prioritize, I'd much prefer to build that feature or fix that bug myself and give it back to the company than have to maintain my own fork.

And I don't really see a problem with that. Presumably my company would be using their software because building the whole thing ourselves would be too costly. But if I need to spend a week or two augmenting it? That's fine. Cheaper for my company, and I'm getting paid to do that work.

[ignoramous]

> a company using the code can audit it and sometimes, depending on the license fix issues for their own use

Presumption that enterprises don't have access to / or fix bugs in proprietary closed-source software of enterprises they depend on is unfounded. iow, source-available (as a way to increase collab and be transparent) is a gimmick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code_escrow

[kokoyo]

Would rather have my team to build the features we need instead of maintaining screens, custom fields or transitions, and ask for a new feature that would take ages.

[ignoramous]

> ask for a new feature that would take ages

You underestimate the level of cooperation that can exist between two tech companies working on each other's proprietary code-bases (where warranted). I'd wager that those agreements won't look too different than with source-available firms.

So, to me, there's no added benefit to source-available; some of these firms want to build a FOSS-like community but also don't want to be FOSS.

[auggierose]

I don't see any misunderstanding there. Maybe you misunderstand the basic meaning of words?

Transparency: If I can see the source code, that is certainly pretty much the definition of transparency.

Collaboration: It is easier to collaborate if I can see the source, don't you think? That doesn't define the legal terms under which this collaboration happens, of course, and you should make sure they suit you before you collaborate.

[ignoramous]

Sure, collab with source-available licenses at your own peril.

[auggierose]

Or at your own benefit. As with any legal agreement you enter into. Also, you might be able to reach out to them, pay them, and obtain a different license. It is easier to see if this is worth the effort by seeing the source code first.

[ignoramous]

Your confusion isn't mine to solve but fortunately more ink has been spilled already, by folks more capable than I, for just that: https://bcantrill.dtrace.org/2018/12/14/open-source-confront...

[kelnos]

GP didn't claim their software was OSS.

I personally wouldn't use something available under a non-OSS source-available type license, but if they're able to build a business around it and are doing well, that's great.