true_blue

The paid option would require a CLA, wouldn't it?

I agree that it's better than the "open core" model because it limits by time rather than space, as they say, but it kinda misses the point of open-source software. The conflict of interest is that they effectively want to be the only ones who can profit off the software, while still benefiting from the free work of others, but commercial-use is within the open-source definition.

My real issue is that it seems like they're trying to spin it as a kind of "open-source", but it's not. If they were more up-front about that, I probably wouldn't care as much.

Also saying that it's less restrictive than copyleft is just outright false.

free-riding

If you're gonna have that kind of attitude, then you don't really care about user freedom.

Yes but the advantage of Linux over windows is obvious. It's open source. Where's the advantage of FreeBSD? Companies can make their own proprietary fork and give nothing back?

I do agree with you that 4-clause BSD is open-source, but only just barely, and I agree with GP that it goes against the spirit of FOSS even if it is technically "open-source".

Plus the advertising clause is just an obnoxious thing to have in a license regardless.