They took down the blog post (I'd be curious to know why), but here is the announcement: https://web.archive.org/web/20190604173131/https://www.cockr...
What started as a neat project with a vibrant and enthusiastic community is now just another dull beige enterprise vendor.
BSL is a totally fair compromise for commercial open source licensing imho.
If you see BSL as the first step to an announcement like today's, that's a fair criticism. Not sure how often that happens. But BSL doesn't disqualify software from being open source.
I agree it’s a reasonable license. But it’s not an open source license.
The BSL is clearly not open source since it requires approval from the licensor in certain applications, but the OSI also rejected the SSPL, which is just an extended AGPL that requires source code publication in even more cases, and is clearly open source because of that.
As to the specifics of SSPL, I personally don’t see the rationale for accepting AGPL but not SSPL.
Well, here we go. Your "open" isn't so open in the end.
So did Debian and Red Hat. Do you think AWS leads them both?
Yes, that’s right!
> But BSL doesn't disqualify software from being open source.
No, that’s wrong: https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html
> The Business Source License […] is not an Open Source license.
One good way of looking at the goals of open source licenses is to force companies to compete on offering services related to the code. Whether this is a sustainable idea is a different question, but this is one of the bedrock ideas about OSS (and FLOSS as well). The other is of course that the rights of those running the software are absolute and trump any rights that the original creators have, except where the users would try to prevent other users from gaining the same rights.
— The Business Source License