The actual text of the BSL mandates - under threat of infringing on BSL's trademark - that in at most four years the code will be available under a GPL 2.0 compatible license. In practice, the BSL license is usually a traditional open source one with caveats. The BSL FAQ also states and restates many, MANY times that it is not an open source license according to the OSI's definition.
I can't help but feel like the outcry over this is just a tempest in a teapot. I have a hunch that "Open Source" will do just fine without us having to carry water for it. After all, the list of OSI's corporate sponsors is quite illustrious: https://opensource.org/sponsors/
If we don't have a common definition, everyone has their own, and there's no common understanding of what rights you have for a piece of Open Source software. That commons has far far more value than any one or ten pieces of software.
I don't think so.
I suppose I can understand why people who feel strongly that the OSI definition is perfect (or at least extremely good) are very intent on protecting it, whereas I see it as flawed and am thus less concerned about this fracturing. So I understand your perspective upon reflection, though I honestly have a lot of trouble imagining holding it myself.
A lot of people in this thread have been saying stuff like "just go full proprietary, that's better", and it sounds ridiculous to me every time I read a variant of it
I think it's a common shared understanding and a focal point, and there's huge value in preserving that. Having a different common understanding might be acceptable, and might even be an improvement, but only if people agree on it. Having no common understanding would mean something of great value was lost.
Right now, many different groups who may not all agree on all goals nonetheless gain value by sticking to Open Source, and not a dozen slight variations on additional restrictions. In the absence of that, we'd have the "non-commercial" group, the "educational use" group, the "don't compete with us" group, the "don't use for military applications" group, the "don't use for nuclear reactors" group, the "don't use to develop proprietary software" group, the "don't redistribute unmodified versions" group, the "don't distribute outdated versions" group, a dozen variations on "don't distribute if you disagree with our values" groups, the "don't distribute if you're a large company" group, the "don't distribute if you're a specific company" groups...
Every one of those is a license term I've seen advocated. Every one of those violates the OSD, so it thankfully stays obscure and unpopular, because enough people prefer using and contributing to software with less unusual licensing.
As for the commons, you are aware that the OSD comes from the Debian Free Software Guidelines (it's the same thing but for some minor working changes)? That is the commons that's been talked about, and it's deployed on far more systems than any BSL code is. So moving to completely propriety (note that this doesn't mean it's not Source Available) means that everyone is upfront about what the state is, whereas something like the BSL is leaning into the halo effect under the justification that the code will be open source at some future point.
We have a messaging flow building platform which is BSL. Anyone who wants to run their own instance is welcome to and people do and thus find it useful. The idea that the world would be better off if we made it closed source and prevented that... is just nonsense.
How does making something closed source automatically mean someone can't run their own instance of it, even for free? Closed source does not mean 'You can only download this if you pay us', just as open source does not mean 'You can download this for free'
