I'm going to vote you up, because at least your points make sense.
The key problem with your argument unfortunately is this part.
>> they don't call it "free software", they call it "open source"
The problem with this is that "Open Source" is already a phrase with meaning. Trying to co-opt that term for marketing reasons is disingenuous.
I happen to think that a source-available license is better than a closed source license. I ship my own code that way. However what I create is not Open Source, and I don't market it as such.
Liquibase is using a known term to market their product, when their license is not compatible with that term.
Their license is absolutely fine. Trying to pass ot off as OSS is not.
The key problem with your argument unfortunately is this part.
>> they don't call it "free software", they call it "open source"
The problem with this is that "Open Source" is already a phrase with meaning. Trying to co-opt that term for marketing reasons is disingenuous.
I happen to think that a source-available license is better than a closed source license. I ship my own code that way. However what I create is not Open Source, and I don't market it as such.
Liquibase is using a known term to market their product, when their license is not compatible with that term.
Their license is absolutely fine. Trying to pass ot off as OSS is not.