[maxloh]

> Elastic License 2.0. The source is public and you may use, copy, modify, and redistribute it. You may not offer SmallDocs to third parties as a hosted or managed service, strip its licensing notices, or circumvent its license-key functionality.

It is not open source unfortunately.

[FailMore]

I posted the same thing below, but I’m open for feedback on the license. I’ve put a lot of work in and I think there is a commercial pathway forward for the product. I don’t want to let someone else - who might be more experienced re commercialisation - take everything I’ve done and build a business with it (I’d really like to do that myself), so wasn’t sure what license to use as MIT didn’t feel right to me at the moment. But open for feedback/maybe I’m being too short sighted…

[Semaphor]

Personally, I like the elastic (and similar) license… as long as, as you did, it’s chosen upfront. Being open source as a marketing strategy and later switching to source available licenses is what I find highly [0] problematic.

[0]: With a bit of an understandable carve out if it turns out no one else ever contributed anything of significance.

[tchalla]

I don’t see why your license should be open source. It’s alright what you have.

[8cvor6j844qw_d6]

> so wasn’t sure what license to use as MIT didn’t feel right to me at the moment

You're onto the right track if you have plans for commercialisation.

Thanks for building this, I've tested it out and it's useful.