Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I have read the link to the shor version and this part is precisely the issue:

> So I chose the Apache License version 2 with Common Clause as a license, which means that n8n was not an OSI-approved open-source project.

> When I launched n8n, I called it “open-source” (note the quotation marks), and everywhere I mentioned that it uses Apache License version 2 with Common Clause, to make it clear.

You will draw anger if you try to dilute the term "open source".

When it comes to monetizing projects by offering them as a service, I would much prefer the BSL shared-source approach that automatically transitions into a true open source license after a fixed ammount of time instead of an OSI licence tainted with a CC so it is no longer OSI aprooved, neither in spirit nor in writing. A CC tainted licence si no longer open and no longer free as in freedom respecting.

And without a fallback to an open license after a time, it will be tainted forever and therefore useless to the open and free ecosystem.




The issue however appears to have been corrected, ddevault's issue said the website stated it is open source. The website now states it is source available.


free software and open source and source available. there is a lot of difference between them and people need to know about it.

free software is not restricted to definition by OSI, while open source is. source available is just that.

>You will draw anger if you try to dilute the term "open source".

open source and free software both




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: