[netzego]

"[...] it is forbidden to copy, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell the Software." [1]

"Open source is source code that is made freely available for possible modification and redistribution." [2]

[1] https://github.com/supertokens/supertokens-core/blob/master/...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

[jorams]

That is the license for the contents of the "ee" directory. The top-level LICENSE is Apache 2.0.

I don't know to what extent this code is integrated into the rest, but it's a valid way to develop open-core software.

[netzego]

"The concept of open-core software has proven to be controversial, as many developers do not consider the business model to be true open-source software. Despite this, open-core models are used by many [...] software companies." [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model

I rather go with this definition. Opensource != opencore. Despite this, you're right, that is the license for `ee` folder.

[Lacerda69]

What features of supertokens are not open source and part of that "enterprise" directory?

[number6]

I am always wondering: If I take the ee directory and garble it through a LLMA, is it protected by copyright?

Does GitHub Copilot take the license change into account for the ee directory, or does it take the tag from the main directory?

[advaitruia]

All the features you see on github / the website is under the apache 2.0 license - truly open source.

The only code in EE so far is the feature flags. We will implement certain "source available" features in the future

[robertlagrant]

Honestly, I'd just make 2 repos if possible. One open source; the other that includes the first one as a library, that has a commercial licence.

Then instead of the "open core" debate (which whenever it can be solved by 2 repos seems specious), you have an open source piece of software and you get points for letting people see your enterprise licenced source code as well.

[dingledork69]

There isn't a singular definition of open source that everyone agrees with.

[justinclift]

Bullshit. "Open Source" is well established, and has been for just over two decades:

https://opensource.org/osd/

That some people - like yourself - want to muddy the waters is neither here nor there.