Not this patronizing bullshit again.
The term "open source" was marketing to take advantage of Netscape releasing their source code. Since since, everyone seems keen on trying to usurp its definition for whatever personal perspective they have that week.
To the rest of the community outside of the OSI and FSF (which is 99%+ of the software community), this is a perfectly acceptable example of "open source" that we're all that much richer for having.
The Timescale license checks almost all the boxes of the OSI definition (and I'm not certain how denying cloud providers specifically violates any of the language):
Please review clause 2.1 (d) and section 2.2. The freedom to run your own modifications in production is not granted. This is a big deal, and rightly a deal-breaking omission for something to be acceptable as either open source or free (as in freedom).
> The Timescale license checks almost all the boxes ...
_Almost_ all, but not all. Some things work only when all of them work, like freedoms.
By my reading, it fails most of the interesting ones, particularly points 1, 3, 4, 6, and 9, due to the field-of-use restrictions and the prohibition on distributing modified versions.
No! You cannot modify and give away the code or even run your own modifications in production. That is pretty far from both
the letter and the spirit of open source..!
> that we're all that much richer for having.
Agree, thanks Timescale members for sharing it! Also I'm happy that you on the team have decided not to pretend it is Open Source.
My beef is only with people who want to pretend that it is OK to say that software that cannot be modified and used/distributed is open source.