Especially when one of the VC firms that funds your project is also the one behind formulation of the PolyForm set of licenses, I'd imagine. At least, PolyForm is better, in some sense, than fully closed source projects built atop other MIT/BSD/Apache licensed projects (say, the V8 JavaScript engine ;), and never shared.
The only reason I dislike non-OSI approved licenses are, the "users" of such licenses want to have their cake and eat it too: As in, they want to project open source ethos while also denying the advantages/rights otherwise afforded by Open Source, as defined by the OSI.
Imo, source-available licenses are justified only when companies using it are honest about their intentions and forthcoming about the license's limitations. Nothing specific on Umbrel, but generally, misdirection by firms insistent on source-available licenses as being some convenient 'middle-ground' is off-putting, to say the least!
I've followed Umbrel since I first stumbled upon it in August 2020, and of course, I'd have liked them to be open-source (since I don't believe software is their core advantage, rather their brand is; but then again, what do I know): https://github.com/getumbrel/umbrel/issues/291#issuecomment-...
That said, Umbrel already brings a lot to the table... its licensing is a predictable HN distraction from discussion on its true potential.
Especially when one of the VC firms that funds your project is also the one behind formulation of the PolyForm set of licenses, I'd imagine. At least, PolyForm is better, in some sense, than fully closed source projects built atop other MIT/BSD/Apache licensed projects (say, the V8 JavaScript engine ;), and never shared.
The only reason I dislike non-OSI approved licenses are, the "users" of such licenses want to have their cake and eat it too: As in, they want to project open source ethos while also denying the advantages/rights otherwise afforded by Open Source, as defined by the OSI.
Imo, source-available licenses are justified only when companies using it are honest about their intentions and forthcoming about the license's limitations. Nothing specific on Umbrel, but generally, misdirection by firms insistent on source-available licenses as being some convenient 'middle-ground' is off-putting, to say the least!
I've followed Umbrel since I first stumbled upon it in August 2020, and of course, I'd have liked them to be open-source (since I don't believe software is their core advantage, rather their brand is; but then again, what do I know): https://github.com/getumbrel/umbrel/issues/291#issuecomment-...
That said, Umbrel already brings a lot to the table... its licensing is a predictable HN distraction from discussion on its true potential.