I found this post about an "open-source" coding assistant called Tabby: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/13830988
I can't comment there, because I guess my instance is defederated from them. But I've noticed something in the license that made me think it might be proprietary software:
This software and associated documentation files (the "Software") may only be used in production, if you (and any entity that you represent) have agreed to, and are in compliance with, the Tabby Subscription Terms of Service, available at https://tabby.tabbyml.com/terms (the “Enterprise Terms”), or other agreement governing the use of the Software, as agreed by you and TabbyML, and otherwise have a valid Tabby Enterprise license for the correct number of user seats. Subject to the foregoing sentence, you are free to modify this Software and publish patches to the Software. You agree that TabbyML and/or its licensors (as applicable) retain all right, title and interest in and to all such modifications and/or patches, and all such modifications and/or patches may only be used, copied, modified, displayed, distributed, or otherwise exploited with a valid Tabby Enterprise license for the correct number of user seats. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you may copy and modify the Software for development and testing purposes, without requiring a subscription. You agree that Tabby and/or its licensors (as applicable) retain all right, title and interest in and to all such modifications. You are not granted any other rights beyond what is expressly stated herein. Subject to the foregoing, it is forbidden to copy, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell the Software.
https://github.com/TabbyML/tabby/blob/main/ee/LICENSE
What do you think? It seems to me that this is a huge restriction on user's 4 essential freedoms.
Yeah no. That's source-available. It does not conform to the Open Source definition and it most definitely does not conform to the Four Freedoms of Free Software.
Thought so! I guess people just assume that whenever they see something on GitHub.
To be fair, it does call itself "open source".
A bit like grayjay. It'd be nice if they stopped lying.
Ah, true. I didn't know about Grayjay, though. It doesn't seem to mention this on their website or GitLab, but I can see that the license is proprietary. Ok, their license does use the words "open source". You are not even allowed to edit the code! Crazy and a huge shame for something coming from people in the right to repair movement. Software freedom should be one of their goals. But I guess they think you should be able to control hardware, but not software.