Comment by dannylmathews
3 days ago
The license on this project is pretty confusing. The license at the root of the project links to backend/cc/LICENSE.md which says you need a subscription license to use the code.
Can you call it open source if you need a subscription license to run / edit the code?
You don't need any subscription to run the code! By default, none of the enterprise code runs (and it can all be completely removed and the app will work as expected). Fully FOSS version here: https://github.com/onyx-dot-app/onyx-foss.
that's fair. What does the enterprise code do vs the FOSS?
As I see it has whitelisting and enterprise integrations.. as for the OS version maybe you need to roll your own. This is a usual monetization method though.
All of the core chat UX + "add-ons" is in FOSS!
In the enterprise:
- permission syncing
- UI-based white labeling
- Advanced RBAC
- Usage analytics UI
It's not really confusing at all.
Content under backend/ee requires a license, everything else is MIT Expat. Pretty standard stuff.
> Can you call it open source if you need a subscription license to run / edit the code?
MIT is open source, their other stuff isn't. Pretty clear.
That's exactly the same approach employed by Gitlab and is actively being deployed and used by GNOME and F-Droid.
Could you elaborate why this approach is confusing?
Yes. Open source doesn’t mean free.
No, they must then state that it is source-available, not open source.
It really does, by any definition I've ever heard. I suppose the authoritative one would be [1].
A common "trick" for commercial open source software is to use a copyleft license, which restricts redistribution as part of commercial products, and to offer a paid license to get around that.
[1]: https://opensource.org/osd
GNU disagrees.
> Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.
> Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
2 replies →
Nothing in that "authoritative" definition says you cannot charge for binaries, for example. It's talking mainly about source code itself. Something you just publish the source for but charge for anything else, would be fair game and still "open source" by that definition.
1 reply →