Here a more concise version of the fair-code background: https://blog.n8n.io/fair-code-for-sustainable-open-source-al...
and here information about the Sustainable Use License switch: https://blog.n8n.io/announcing-new-sustainable-use-license/
Here a more concise version of the fair-code background: https://blog.n8n.io/fair-code-for-sustainable-open-source-al...
and here information about the Sustainable Use License switch: https://blog.n8n.io/announcing-new-sustainable-use-license/
> So I chose the Apache License version 2 with Common Clause as a license, which means that n8n was not an OSI-approved open-source project.
> When I launched n8n, I called it “open-source” (note the quotation marks), and everywhere I mentioned that it uses Apache License version 2 with Common Clause, to make it clear.
You will draw anger if you try to dilute the term "open source".
When it comes to monetizing projects by offering them as a service, I would much prefer the BSL shared-source approach that automatically transitions into a true open source license after a fixed ammount of time instead of an OSI licence tainted with a CC so it is no longer OSI aprooved, neither in spirit nor in writing. A CC tainted licence si no longer open and no longer free as in freedom respecting.
And without a fallback to an open license after a time, it will be tainted forever and therefore useless to the open and free ecosystem.
free software is not restricted to definition by OSI, while open source is. source available is just that.
>You will draw anger if you try to dilute the term "open source".
open source and free software both