(no title)
martingxx | 6 years ago
However, I believe it's misleading to call it "open source". The SPPL license is not generally considered to be an open source licence by any meaningful definition, and in particular does not meet the OSI definition and is incompatible with most licences that do.
I understand the need these days to protect against aggressive cloud providers, but there are other ways to achieve that without becoming completely non open source, such as the BSL
(See license.https://opensourceforu.com/2019/06/cockroach-labs-changes-it... )
soumyadeb|6 years ago
But at heart we want to build an open-source community while still being a viable business on the likes of MatterMost, Elastic etc.
abdullahkhalids|6 years ago
My understanding is that, Mattermost is okay with others making money from their software if they don't modify it - which will practically work for some, but not all, small companies, and will be very difficult for the big companies to use. If the big companies want to modify and use Mattermost-server for free they are forced to contribute back the changes to the OS project, and then can make as much money as they want. Or use option 2, pay Mattermost a bunch of money for the privilege of not contributing back code to the OS project. In other words FAANG and co can either contribute to Mattermost financially or in code - their pick.
ensignavenger|6 years ago