This is Jay, the CEO of Confluent. No, actually quite the opposite. We took pain...

shabbyrobe · on Dec 17, 2018

> Embed our open source

I thought the FAQ said you wouldn't refer to it as such:

> Because of this, we will not refer to the Confluent Community License or any code released under it as open source.

nl · on Dec 17, 2018

I believe the trademarked term is “Open Source” (with capitals) and they are avoiding that.

IMO it’s a deliberately deceptive technique to try to confuse the market and dilute open source.

slavik81 · on Dec 17, 2018

The quoted passage from the FAQ says "open source" in lowercase.

plopz · on Dec 17, 2018

There is no trademark on "Open Source", whats trademarked is "OSI Certified".

wongarsu · on Dec 17, 2018

> dilute open source.

I think you mean "dilute Open Source" with capitals :P

More seriously: most terms dilute over time, and it takes a lot of effort to prevent that. I wouldn't assume every instance is malicious

phoe-krk · on Dec 17, 2018

> were free to embed our open source

Source available. Your license is not open source as understood by OSI or free software as understood by FSF.

jamesblonde · on Dec 17, 2018

I am no expert on this, but based on Bryan's analysis, if Landoop were to release a SAAS offering of their product, they would be in breach of the license. As Landoop are pushing Kafka on Kubernetes, I assume that is their strategy - to have a SAAS offering at some stage (we are all going to the cloud, i thought?).