Adopt license that prevents orphaning

[voxpelli]

Currently the ee/ is licensed under a bespoke proprietary license that is vulnerable to orphaning, something that is especially concerning for a young VC-backed startup as yours.

I would like to propose that you switch this bespoke proprietary license to a standard proprietary license that isn't prone to orphaning: The BSL (Business Source License)

Its in use by many successful OSS companies, like eg:

• Couchbase
• MariaDB (the ones who created the license)
• Sentry

The purpose of the BSL is to stay as true as possible to Open Source values while still allowing for a successful business to be run on top of it:

Q: What is the purpose of BSL?

A: To create a license that strikes a balance between being able to run a financially viable software company while still supporting the original tenets of Open Source, such as empowering all software developers to be part of the innovation cycle – giving them open access to the code so they can modify or distribute the software by making the entire source code available from the start. Ultimately, we hope that BSL will create more Open Source software.

In itself BSL only allows for non-production use, leaving it up to you yourself to define an “Additional Use Grant” along the lines of your current license. This makes it a much less bespoke license where those familiar with BSL already knows how it works to a large degree:

Q: What are the usage limitations under BSL?

A: The usage is limited to non-production use, or production use within the limits of the “Additional Use Grant” defined by the vendor using BSL and specific to each BSL product.

The orphan problem / vendor lock-in is fixed by having the license no later than 4 years after the public release automatically convert to a GPL 2.0 or later compatible license (you could define it to be "MIT Expat" to stay in line with the rest of your code). Shorter time span can also be defined to encourage a tighter collaboration with the OSS community.

This fixes the orphan problem by ensuring that even if SigNoz, Inc. or any successor of it is no longer around to give licenses for production use anymore, the work put into the project will not be left in vain, it will still be possible for others to pick it up eventually, and unlike AGPL / SSPL (especially if resolving to a MIT-style license) new businesses can easily pick it up and build new businesses upon it eventually (but not in such a short span of time that it threatens your current business, rather it just ensures users of you that investing in using your platform is an investment they can gain from even if you were to no longer be around, which is great for risk management):

Q: You claim that with BSL there is no vendor lock-in. How do you define vendor lock-in?

A: Vendor lock-in occurs when users have only one vendor to go to for support, fixing bugs or getting new features added to the product. BSL avoids this in two ways. First, it allows inspection and modification of source code by any licensee. Second, when the license converts to the Change License, the software is free for anyone to use, change, and share under those terms.