Fair enough, thanks for the correction. I should be more careful with my wording. I think it’s “open-source”, but not an “open-source project”. In a sense that, they release the source code under a restrictive license, but they themselves will not have it this way and can stop publishing the code any time they want.
So they publish the source code under an OSI-approved license as you say, but they don’t develop it in an open manner and I think it’s fair to say that they are not an open-source project.
@vas Yeah, that’s fair too. The project behind it is indeed a commercial entity, hence why they set it up that way.
Personally, I wouldn’t be too concerned about them failing to publish new versions, because then the last version will still remain open source forever. And even projects with an open governance model can run out of steam, so the risk might not be any greater here. But yeah, it’s good to be mindful of the risks and restrictions when starting any new project.
Fair enough, thanks for the correction. I should be more careful with my wording. I think it’s “open-source”, but not an “open-source project”. In a sense that, they release the source code under a restrictive license, but they themselves will not have it this way and can stop publishing the code any time they want.
So they publish the source code under an OSI-approved license as you say, but they don’t develop it in an open manner and I think it’s fair to say that they are not an open-source project.
@vas Yeah, that’s fair too. The project behind it is indeed a commercial entity, hence why they set it up that way.
Personally, I wouldn’t be too concerned about them failing to publish new versions, because then the last version will still remain open source forever. And even projects with an open governance model can run out of steam, so the risk might not be any greater here. But yeah, it’s good to be mindful of the risks and restrictions when starting any new project.