Hi,
when looking at pritunl, I see that the license agreement allows users to use the tool, but it constraints the usage to non-commercial use. In my opinion, this doesn’t comply with the OSI standard for open source, but should be defined as “source available”.
While I agree that it’s friendly to allow individuals to use this tool for private use, I would like to advocate not confusing terms.
The license does restrict commercial use as defined by requiring users to pay for access to the software. Using the term source available would be more accurate but it isn’t a very well known term and there’s currently no plans on changing it.
Thanks for the honest answer. I think it’s a worrisome trend that multiple companies are (deliberately) diluting the meaning of this term. I am convinced that it would flatter you for making the ethically conscious choice - though I think your marketing team won’t agree.
I am convinced that clarity will benefit both clients and the company. And for the term “source available” not being commonplace yet… That’s a chicken and egg problem. The term is starting to create onroad, so I can only recommend joining that clear movement.