[krawczstef]

your comment made me think I read it wrong, but it's not closed source, they're just moving to a source available license...

[kstrauser]

Tomato, tomato. If it’s not FOSS, I’m not going to sign off on wasting time on it.

(Yes, of course I use proprietary services where necessary and they can’t be avoided. This isn’t one of those cases. Example of things where I’m pretty adamant about it: server OSes. Databases. Programming languages. Web servers.)

[theamk]

> Licensor grants You a limited, non-exclusive, revocable, non-sublicensable, non-transferable,

For now it's source-available with generous limit, but this can be changed or revoked at any time, and this may immediately make your existing installations illegal.

[Cpoll]

> this can be changed or revoked at any time, and this may immediately make your existing installations illegal.

I was going to argue, but they do explicitly say "revocable." Has such a license revocation ever been upheld in court?

[nemothekid]

A database license that only lets you store 10TB data might as well be closed source

[kstrauser]

Even better: that’s 10TB per organization.

[bayindirh]

Source available doesn't allow you to build on that software or patch it the way you see fit.

Heck, even some source available licenses doesn't allow you to compile that thing, let alone get parts and use it elsewhere.

However, I somewhat like source available licenses currently, because they're neat little mines that sneak in to training sets of generative AI models and make the models less suitable for serious work.

[relatedtitle]

How does it make the models less suitable? Wouldn't more high quality source code help improve it? If it was closed source entirely it couldn't be trained on.

[dragonwriter]

“Source available” is within the common usage of the term “closed source” which is simply the negation of “open source”.