A list of cases where open source licenses are misrepresented or where "Open Source" is used in a non-open-source-definition adhering manner.
History & Purpose
After getting involved in Open Source I've noticed people misrepresenting their licenses or using the term "Open Source" while using a license which does not meet the commonly understood definition. Of course people are free to use words however they want, but most cases I see this occur are those that would bring benefit to the author while propagating confusion of the Open Source term and licensing, and eroding the efforts made by many other to contribute and build the reputation of Open Source.
This page lists such cases in an attempt to document scenarios where confusion may be being propagated and provide a resource to learn from in regards to where confusion may commonly lie.
Many will see this as pedantic gate-keeping, which it may be from a certain perspective, but I see this as protecting & advocating for the wonderful ideal that is Open Source.
Scope
I've set some criteria for this list to focus on those actively causing potential confusion in the Open Source space. Some cases can be accidental, as Open Source and licensing can be complex topics, so I don't want to call out, or put pressure, on those that are simply in the process of learning or too small to cause issue. Therefore, the criteria is as follows (and may change over time):
- Must be a person/group inferring incorrect information about their Open Source license, or using the term "Open Source" in a non OSD manner.
- Must have a reasonable following, popularity or visibility (Have published news articles or have over 1k GitHub stars etc...).
- Must have been (politely) advised of their potential confusion, and subsequently chosen to continue with their confusion or they have avoided any response after a reasonable amount of time.
Feedback & Contribution
Feel free to raise an issue if you think any information within this repo/list is incorrect in any way. If you know of an instance of Open Source confusion, that should be added to this list, please open an issue for discussion and confirmation of meeting the scope. Please don't open a PR without any prior confirmation.
Much of this list is of my (Dan Brown) opinion. I am not a lawyer in any way, nor an expert of the law, and I may make mistakes. I am a maintainer and contributor of Open Source projects, I have a strong opinion of Open Source, and an argument could be made that I benefit from preventing the confusion I am looking to point out.
Note: Please don't harass or be negative to the people & groups in this list, or their communities. This is meant as a peaceful process only, any intent to be harmful is strongly out of order and counter-intuitive to a productive discussion.
- Airbyte - Advertises as open source under ELv2.
- APITable - Misrepresents AGPLv3.
- Bitwarden - Passwordless - Advertises as open source under proprietary license.
- Cal.com - Misrepresents AGPLv3.
- Diffgram - Advertises as open source under a custom license preventing many freedoms.
- Dokploy - Advertises as open source under a modified Apache license, preventing many freedoms.
- Erxes - Adds additional use limitation to AGPLv3.
- FreeFileSync - Adds additional use limitation to GPLv3.
- Nango - Advertises as open source under ELv2.
- OpenReplay - Advertises as open source under ELv2.
- Rock RMS - Limits use and distribution audience.
- Runa Capital - Misrepresents projects as open source for marketing.
- Sentry - Advertises as open source under FSL.
- Tailwarden - Komiser - Advertises as open source under ELv2.