> There is less of a difference between BSL and MIT than between any GPL license, as I'm sure you are aware.
Nonsense. There is an enormous difference between the MIT license, which grants you permission to use and sublicense something without any restrictions, and the BSL, which does not.
> If I'm giving away software including source in the open, for free, while allowing redistribution and modification, then I'm not sure how to convey that without offending patrons of the OSI and FSF.
If you put limitations on how that software is used, then no, you're not giving it away. That part is something the OSI and FSF have been very clear about for decades - see e.g. the FSF's "four freedoms", which are about as clear and simple as you can get.
Even silly "camel's nose" limitations count, and have to count, otherwise there is no place to draw the line; see the OSI and FSF's comments on the HESSLA or the (pre-2021) JSLint license. Again this is something they've been clear about for decades.
> Not feeling like walking around on eggshells to give things away that's for certain.
If you want to give things away for free then do so. If you want to pull a Columbia Record Club "it's free, no wait you have to pay us" scam then of course people aren't going to support that.
Brother, let's agree to disagree. I'm not involved in any of these licensing dramas as I don't have any feelings of entitlement to free labor. People can give away as little or as much as they please.
There's no "agree to disagree" when you're doing something that (whether you intend it that way or not) will end up scamming people. Don't tell people your code is open source when it's not open source. Don't tell people your code is free when it's not free. It's not entitlement to expect people to keep their word, even if you didn't pay them.
Accusing people of "scamming" you by giving you something for nothing, and putting their extremely permissive terms in clear writing, is acting entitled. You're not the lifeguard on this beach, so draw your lines in the sand somewhere else. Good day to you sir.
Do you really not understand that the colloquial use of these terms differ, and that most people don't even know about the FSF and OSI? On the other hand, the license has always been the law and everyone knows that. If you're just going off someone mentioning they "open-sourced" their work, not checking the license, and importing that into corporate projects, then you could end up with anything and would frankly be lucky to later find a FSL or BSL rather than something in the GPL family. Being scammed and just being dumb are two entirely different things, and you have yet to point out any real scams.
> If you're just going off someone mentioning they "open-sourced" their work, not checking the license, and importing that into corporate projects, then you could end up with anything and would frankly be lucky to later find a FSL or BSL rather than something in the GPL family.
You would expect to be able to run the program freely, including as part of your production services, without incurring any obligations. And under any open-source license (including GPL-family) you can, because that's part of what open-source means. Getting presented with a bill because the program turned out to be BSL and the way you were using it means you need a commercial license is absolutely a scam.
Nonsense. There is an enormous difference between the MIT license, which grants you permission to use and sublicense something without any restrictions, and the BSL, which does not.
> If I'm giving away software including source in the open, for free, while allowing redistribution and modification, then I'm not sure how to convey that without offending patrons of the OSI and FSF.
If you put limitations on how that software is used, then no, you're not giving it away. That part is something the OSI and FSF have been very clear about for decades - see e.g. the FSF's "four freedoms", which are about as clear and simple as you can get.
Even silly "camel's nose" limitations count, and have to count, otherwise there is no place to draw the line; see the OSI and FSF's comments on the HESSLA or the (pre-2021) JSLint license. Again this is something they've been clear about for decades.
> Not feeling like walking around on eggshells to give things away that's for certain.
If you want to give things away for free then do so. If you want to pull a Columbia Record Club "it's free, no wait you have to pay us" scam then of course people aren't going to support that.