The license on server forbids you to do anything about it, but it is “hey look, open source!”. i.e. You can see, develop and modify the code on your own but under the license you can’t do anything about it. That’s really saying you are allowed to develop something you legally cannot own unless you paid the subscription, on top of that they can slap the “open source” label on it.
FOSS and OSS mean the same thing. Apparently this stems from MBAs failing to understand the difference between free speech and free beer, and automatically assuming the later.
So this is “source available”, and the label “open source” is bogus.
@7heo taking the term “open source” literally as just open for reading (not open for modification, distribution etc…) that’s only what big monopolistic corporations want you to believe. They’ve been attempting to redefine the term for many years. Before they started this campaign it was pretty clear to everyone that open source means one of the OSI licenses. Think about it, if it was only about readability, then all javascript would be technically open source. The mixup is artificial.
The term “open source” is well defined by OSS. It seems like the client itself is open source, but the server is under a proprietary license. So yeah, this aint it.
Technically, it’s “source available” if that’s what they mean/say. However, afaiu the
This EE License applies only to the part of this Software that is not
distributed as part of AFFiNE Community Edition (CE). Any part of this Software
distributed as part of AFFiNE CE or is served client-side […], is
copyrighted under the MPL2.0 license.
part, it only applies to enterprise edition, so that’s quite a common way of doing things. Kinda like what gitlab does with their ce and we versions.
Edit: well, and you are enterprise as soon as you use it in production. So, yeah, source available.
The license on server forbids you to do anything about it, but it is “hey look, open source!”. i.e. You can see, develop and modify the code on your own but under the license you can’t do anything about it. That’s really saying you are allowed to develop something you legally cannot own unless you paid the subscription, on top of that they can slap the “open source” label on it.
Edit: alright, I stand corrected.
FOSS and OSS mean the same thing. Apparently this stems from MBAs failing to understand the difference between free speech and free beer, and automatically assuming the later.
So this is “source available”, and the label “open source” is bogus.
@7heo taking the term “open source” literally as just open for reading (not open for modification, distribution etc…) that’s only what big monopolistic corporations want you to believe. They’ve been attempting to redefine the term for many years. Before they started this campaign it was pretty clear to everyone that open source means one of the OSI licenses. Think about it, if it was only about readability, then all javascript would be technically open source. The mixup is artificial.
The term “open source” is well defined by OSS. It seems like the client itself is open source, but the server is under a proprietary license. So yeah, this aint it.
Technically, it’s “source available” if that’s what they mean/say. However, afaiu the
part, it only applies to enterprise edition, so that’s quite a common way of doing things. Kinda like what gitlab does with their ce and we versions.
Edit: well, and you are enterprise as soon as you use it in production. So, yeah, source available.
deleted by creator