My comment was more directed toward the grandparent, which had their own set of comments regarding Open Source software. By and large, I'm happy with the announcement and how you're handling these terms carefully.
My only nitpick is the repeated statement of:
> a source-available license that was open-source in spirit
Which, um, it's not. I understand you're trying to thread a needle here and protect your business but it's not following the "spirit" of the community. You're removing a rather fundamental freedom by introducing your own license. That's rather antithetical to the whole idea of Open Source
Companies like TimeScale should call themselves "source available companies" in order to signal that they are offering some degree of access to the source (which is good!) while avoiding some of the by-now well-understood pitfalls of trying to commercialize FOSS offerings.
I disagree. "source available" already has a long established meaning, and one that it far more restrictive than the TSL.
The TSL actually lets you do a lot - almost anything, really. It's an open source license (I even used little o's!) that is designed to only prevent cloud providers from selling TimescaleDB as a service.
"The usage of pork broth in an otherwise vegetarian dish is vegetarian in spirit."
I can't help but wonder if they're using the phrase "open source in spirit" to leech the branding of open source (while ironically treating other companies as leeches).
> "source available" already has a long established meaning, and one that it far more restrictive than the TSL.
The established meaning is “any non-F/OSS licenses that nevertheless provides free access to source code, which may or may not also provide some usage rights”
TSL is exactly that.
There might be some utility to a name for a new subcategory of source available, but it's not meaningfully similar to open source since it remains, ultimately, a traditional, rent-protection proprietary license. The fact that current market conditions give a very particular rent-extracting opportunity that the vendor wants to protect and the vendor focussed rent protection where the most value is...is not unusual, even if the exact current valuable rent-extraction opportunity is different than it was even a few years ago.
> I disagree. "source available" already has a long established meaning, and one that it far more restrictive than the TSL.
It doesn't really - it's been used to describe a pretty broad range of licenses. "Source available" means you can read the source but do not have all of the rights you'd get from an open source license. Which is the case for TSL.
> it's not following the "spirit" of the community.
Which community are you speaking for here? "Free Software" or "Open Source"? They are separate communities with a long history of rivalry between each other.
My only nitpick is the repeated statement of:
> a source-available license that was open-source in spirit
Which, um, it's not. I understand you're trying to thread a needle here and protect your business but it's not following the "spirit" of the community. You're removing a rather fundamental freedom by introducing your own license. That's rather antithetical to the whole idea of Open Source