[maxloh]

There is one caveat, though: it is not open source as advertised.

> In the event of a conflict, these provisions shall take precedence over those in the Apache License:

> Restriction on Resale: The multi-node support, Docker Compose file support, Preview Deployments and Multi Server features cannot be sold or offered as a service by any party other than the copyright holder without prior written consent.

> Modification Distribution: Any modifications to the multi-node support, Docker Compose file support, Preview Deployments and Multi Server features must be distributed freely and cannot be sold or offered as a service.

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

[milliams]

The author has seemed oblivious to the difference in past discussions - to the point of deleting issues asking for the description to be changed (https://github.com/Dokploy/dokploy/issues/82 - unfortunately not archived on Wayback).

The fact they're still advertising it as "Open source", even now is astonishing and are clearly just using it as a marketing point and are not interested in it in reality.

[therealpygon]

As with many companies that claim to be “open source” while having excessively restrictive licenses and sometimes not even sharing source.

[diggan]

I think once we let Facebook/Meta get away with calling Llama "Open Source" and seemingly no one bats an eye, we kind of lost the battle about what "Open Source" means. It's not talking about something being available for you without signing an agreement, nor is it actually about source code, but it seems to basically be synonymous with "Freeware" these days.

[XajniN]

Does someone have a legal authority over the term “open source”?