As it’s explained in blog, many open sourced projects are used for commercial gain without doing ’copy left’, the license created here essentially covers those concerns and ensures any forks do ‘copy left’ their changes with all the freedom as in ‘free’ of open source software. I don’t see the problem with this

All the kerfuffle related to ‘official’ definitions, did it help open source projects from being copied and commercialised mercilessly by closed source software (essentially legalised spyware) of corporations? I never understand this obsession.

Software should be open sourced and it should have strict copy left clause!

Relevant idea related to problems with copy left explained here https://www.osnews.com/story/25469/richard-stallman-was-righ...

Co-founder of anytype is here. The most of are repos are open-source. We have our philosophy regarding open source here https://blog.anytype.io/our-open-philosophy/ Happy to discuss concerns regarding our approach.

Yeah no, that's not how open-source works. Your license is effectively a "source available" license and not officially approved by the OSI: https://opensource.org/licenses/

This is not an open source license:

https://opensource.org/osd/

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

I don't see your license on this list -- https://opensource.org/licenses/

Please don't advertise anytype as open-source.

He literally voiced a concern and you just completed ignored it by linking a BS corporate speak page.

You are available on Github which doesn't = open-source

Also why only most and not all?