The business goal of FSL seems typical enough.
The reason I brought up the typical and atypical distinction was something other than the company's motivation.
It seems the_mitsuhiko rejects the label "source-available" because FSL software becomes free.
That's different from most other source-available product licenses.
(I don't have statistics;
this is my impression.)
In this sense FSL and BSL are similar enough to each other and both atypical.
So, if this is the_mitsuhiko's objection to the label,
he can credibly claim FSL to be different from a regular source-available license where it matters to him.
(As I said, IMO a better approach than disputing the label.)
> without opening it up to competition.
I wonder about that.
In many markets you can probably compete using a competent fork tracking a two-year-old version of a market leader.
Even integrations shouldn't be too much of a problem if the market leader naturally avoids breaking the API.
It seems the_mitsuhiko rejects the label "source-available" because FSL software becomes free. That's different from most other source-available product licenses. (I don't have statistics; this is my impression.) In this sense FSL and BSL are similar enough to each other and both atypical. So, if this is the_mitsuhiko's objection to the label, he can credibly claim FSL to be different from a regular source-available license where it matters to him. (As I said, IMO a better approach than disputing the label.)
> without opening it up to competition.
I wonder about that. In many markets you can probably compete using a competent fork tracking a two-year-old version of a market leader. Even integrations shouldn't be too much of a problem if the market leader naturally avoids breaking the API.