Liquibase continues to advertise itself as "open source" despite license switch

License change, trust, and “bait-and-switch” concerns

• Liquibase moved from Apache 2.0 to the Functional Source License (FSL), which Liquibase itself says is not open source. The README and marketing still saying “open source” is seen as misleading (“source‑washing”).
• Many view license changes from OSI‑approved to source‑available as a bait‑and‑switch that destroys trust, especially when telemetry was added beforehand and the project built a large OSS user base.
• Others argue you still have perpetual rights to existing Apache‑licensed versions and forking is always possible, so it’s closer to a price hike than true bait‑and‑switch—but critics note that forking is often not viable for typical users.

Open Source vs “source available” vs Free Software

• Large subthread debates what “open source” means:
  • One camp: OSI’s Open Source Definition is the de‑facto meaning; anything restricting commercial/competitive use is not open source and claiming otherwise is deceptive.
  • Another camp: “open source” just means publicly viewable source; OSI is “just an organization” and has no legal monopoly on the term.
• Several distinguish “Open Source” (OSI sense) from “Free Software” (FSF’s four freedoms) and from looser “source available” models that allow reading and limited redistribution but restrict certain uses.

Free software ideals vs business realities

• Strong free‑software advocates say FSL and similar licenses are proprietary because they violate freedom 0 (use for any purpose) and restrict redistribution/hosting; they see this as sacrificing user freedom to protect vendor business models.
• Others are comfortable trading some freedoms from large vendors (e.g., hyperscalers reselling as SaaS) to keep smaller companies sustainable; they see “no‑hyperscaler” clauses and delayed‑open‑source as reasonable compromises.
• Long back‑and‑forth compares copyleft (GPL/AGPL) vs permissive (MIT/BSD) vs new “fair source” styles. Some argue AGPL already solves the “cloud free‑rider” problem and has case law; others distrust its enforceability or find it too “viral.”

Big tech, OSI, and capture narrative

• Some claim big tech financed OSI to co‑opt the free software movement, normalize non‑restrictive “open source” definitions, and delegitimize alternative licenses that curb hyperscaler monetization.
• Others counter that OSI largely adopted Debian’s guidelines, that its definitions are broadly useful, and that big tech itself often avoids strong copyleft (AGPL), proving OSI is not simply serving hyperscaler interests.

Practical impact, ecosystems, and alternatives

• Many report or plan migrations from Liquibase to Flyway, Alembic, Sqitch, Atlas, pgroll, or custom SQL‑based migration tooling; concerns include:
  • Future license tightening and unclear “competing use” definitions.
  • Incompatibility with foundations requiring OSI‑approved licenses (e.g., CNCF, Debian/Fedora main repos).
• Some argue typical internal users won’t be affected by FSL, since it mainly blocks competing hosted services; critics reply that it still locks ecosystems to a single primary vendor and discourages contributions from organizations that forbid contributing to proprietary codebases.