It is open source in the sense that the source is open, you can go and look at it. It's even free open source in the sense that you can take it and use in your own, commercial project without the need to compensate its authors.
The only limit is, that the project you're building with it can't be a hosted service version of the software itself - which is, what I assume, Serra's business model will be.
I don't think that "Open Source" just means Apache 2 and MIT licensed stuff - and infact feel, that the license Serra chose is one of the most generous OSS licenses that still retain just enough rights for the authors to make a living.
And how does the OSI derive it's legitimacy as the steward for all things open source? As far as I am concerned, it is just one body with its own private viewpoint, not a universal lawmaker for all open source devs.
In general, while I appreciate the work of the OSI, I believe that they are too idealistic in their viewpoint, derived from the world of Linux and early OS.
In my view, if we want to maintain a healthy and growing open source ecosystem, we must allow the makers of great OSS to be sustainable and monetize their creation. I don't believe that that's an inherent conflict with the spirit of OSS.
> And how does the OSI derive it's legitimacy as the steward for all things open source?
We give it to them.
OSI isn't an entity that's existed since the beginning and the original definition doesn't come from them.
I agree that it's not a space that doesn't change.
Having said that, change must come from the community. It can't be just a couple corporate entities defining their own license, calling it open source, and going against the established definition.
> In my view, if we want to maintain a healthy and growing open source ecosystem, we must allow the makers of great OSS to be sustainable and monetize their creation. I don't believe that that's an inherent conflict with the spirit of OSS.
I don't mind monetization don't get me wrong.
Should it change? I'm not the authority on it. I'm just saying it's not the current definition.
At the end of the day, Pure Open Source™ modulo one very narrowly defined prohibited use is good enough for everyone except product managers at large public cloud companies and people who want to argue about ideological purity. It provides all of the same benefits.
I get what you’re saying. The term for that is “source available” though.
Open Source has a specific meaning to the people who frequent this site. And I get how YC companies a scrutinized more for vague and misleading promises.
What if someone said their app was free to use. And then somewhere far in the sign up flow, it turns out you are required to pay. And then the app developer claims “well, you’re free to use it, but you do have to pay”. It’s not that that sentence can’t mean what the developer says it does. But they should take into account what people will think it means.
The only limit is, that the project you're building with it can't be a hosted service version of the software itself - which is, what I assume, Serra's business model will be.
I don't think that "Open Source" just means Apache 2 and MIT licensed stuff - and infact feel, that the license Serra chose is one of the most generous OSS licenses that still retain just enough rights for the authors to make a living.