From reviewing the license, the portions under the ee directory are not open source, they’re source-available with some additional grants of rights given certain conditions.
No, the portions outside the EE directory are both open source and free software because it satisfies the definitions of both. The software in the EE directory satisfies neither. The combined work is neither, it’s a mix of FOSS and source-available.
You have it backwards. Free and Open Source software is Open Source (subset). But Open Source is not Free and Open Source (superset).
Langfuse is a great example of where this is the case: https://github.com/langfuse/langfuse/blob/main/LICENSE
It is open source, but all features under the
eefolder are not free, thus it is not FOSS.From reviewing the license, the portions under the ee directory are not open source, they’re source-available with some additional grants of rights given certain conditions.
Here’s the definition I use for “open source”, and here’s the one I use for “free software”. Most (all?) free software licenses meet the definition of free software, but not all open source licenses meet the definition of free software, so that’s why I tend to set that free software is a subset of open source software.
That is exactly what I said above.
No, the portions outside the EE directory are both open source and free software because it satisfies the definitions of both. The software in the EE directory satisfies neither. The combined work is neither, it’s a mix of FOSS and source-available.