alt Hacker NewsPersonally I think differentiation between "open source" and "source available" is good.
Open source, is, essentially software that I expect to be able to use commercially and tweak if required - but I'm own my own, and I pay for support.
Source available means I can basically help debug issues I have...but I expect that a paid licence is required and will have a selection of limitations (number of nodes, etc).
Replies
> Personally I think differentiation between "open source" and "source available" is good
Maybe, but I think that "source available" isn't detailed enough and can mean many many different things.
> Source available means I can basically help debug issues I have...but I expect that a paid licence is required and will have a selection of limitations (number of nodes, etc).
Point in case. For me there is one group, under something like BSL or FSL or SSPL which mostly restricts you from competing with the project's creators (e.g. making your own SaaS out of it), but everything else is fair use, you can use it in prod to make money at any size, etc. And a separate, more restrictive one, which has size, or production restrictions (you can't run the software if you're a commercial entity).
Source available sounds like a good description for the second one, because it's just available, little more. But for the first one where you can do whatever you want with one single exception that doesn't impact 99.9999% of potential users, it's not a good and clear enough description.
"Source Available" means that it can become "Source Unavailable" overnight.
See the "Our Machinery" fiasco.
Yes, Open Source isn't a complete defense against this (especially when there are copyright assignments). However, it sure makes it both a lot harder to pull off and a lot less useful to even try.