[dang]

[stub for offtopicness]

(ok you guys, we've taken 'open source' out of the title, let's talk about something more interesting now)

[r0b05]

This is not an open source application. Here is the definition of open source should you wish to correct your post - https://opensource.org/osd

[srameshc]

Inkeep SDK – Elastic License 2.0 with Supplemental Terms https://github.com/inkeep/agents?tab=License-1-ov-file#readm...

[mips_avatar]

That's an extremely restrictive license, the best you could say about it is it's "source available"

[rvz]

This is not "open source" at all.

It looks like OpenAI really has messed around with the definition of "Open" and we are seeing lots of startups run with that to the point where the definition is meaningless.

Just like "AGI" is also meaningless.

[mips_avatar]

The good news is their rugpull is their launch day since they came out of the gate with a fake open source license

[brazukadev]

for a product that nobody is actually interested, the 10th agent builder from YC in the last month.

[mips_avatar]

I mean I think this agent builder might be cool, but I'm definitely not using it when OpenAI's is MIT licensed

[bityard]

From what I recall, misuse of "open source" started becoming popular around the time that every dev and their dog was writing a GUI REST client with the following playbook:

1. Code up a halfway decent product.

2. Call yourself the "open source alternative to X" where X is some well-known proprietary enterprise product.

3. Once you have a community and your product has gotten stable on the backs of thousands of unpaid volunteers, pull the rug and rake in millions of those sweet, sweet enterprise dollars.

[bityard]

Please do not call this open source.

> The Inkeep Agent Framework is licensed under the Elastic License 2.0 (ELv2) subject to Inkeep's Supplemental Terms (SUPPLEMENTAL_TERMS.md). This is a fair-code, source-available license that allows broad usage while protecting against certain competitive uses.

[thedevilslawyer]

Fake "Open source" all over again.. why do we repeatedly have to do this? You can own the "Fair source" and call it that.

I was excited with the pitch. And then had this completely ruin your image. If you'd been upfront, then you could still have retained the interest.

I recommend everyone keep away from this if you care about your autonomy should your side project commercialize. There's plenty of good alternatives. The intent seems dishonest - given how brazenly every comment about the license is exclusively being ignored.

[engomez]

We aim to be upfront with the fair-code approach by detailing that in the post, docs, etc. Our goal is to allow for broad usage for folks using it for building assistants, copilots, workflows, etc., while protecting against direct competitive use of the platform. This helps us guarantee we can continue to innovate.

[mips_avatar]

You're "source available" don't call something open source when it's not

[JimDabell]

You aren’t being upfront if you are calling it open source. Fair code is not open source.

[nextworddev]

Was expecting MIT license but disappointed. If not there’s plenty of established “OSS” options.

[engomez]

We aim to be transparent with the fair-code approach by detailing that in the post, docs, readme. Our goal is to allow for broad usage for folks using it for building assistants, copilots, workflows, etc. while ensuring it can be economically viable for us long term.