[JimDabell]

Yeah, that’s not open source. You plan on releasing today’s version as open source two years from now, but it is not currently open source and won’t be for years. Even when it does become open source it will be a version that is two years out of date, not the current version.

Open source allows commercial competition. You apparently didn’t want that, so you chose a non-open source license that specifically forbids that. That’s your prerogative, but you shouldn’t tell people it is open source.

[JoshPurtell]

I concede that it is not precisely OSS. But if I tell someone that it is source-available, they will expect some kind of license restriction for any use. If I tell someone OSS, they will expect mostly what the Sentry license entails, unless they are a competitor, in which case I really don't care what they think.

I wish there were a popular term that conveys exactly how Sentry license works. But, there isn't - so I think it's fair to say open source, maybe as a general term. I'll change it from OSS to open source