2 of them are lincensed under BSD-3, so not open source. The the 3rd one uses Firebase, so no thanks.

Edit: BSD-3 is open source. I confused it with BSD-4. My bad.

How is BSD-3 not open source? I think you are confusing “Free/Libre” and Open Source. BSD-3/MIT live se are absolutely open source. GPL is Free/Libre and Open Source (FLOSS)

It’s not by OSD definition. Having code source available =/ open source.

And most Lemmy clients I have seen use GPL or AGPL licences, so they couldn’t use code licensed under BSD.

Edit: This is incorrect. I confused it with BSD-4. My bad.

What in the BSD-3 license goes against OSD exactly?

You are clearly confused. The BSD-3 isn’t only “having the source”, it gives you the right to package, distribute, and modify the source code at will. What it doesn’t have compared to the GPL is protections from someone not sharing their modifications (for example when used in closed source products). It that sense it is more “freedom” than the GPL, but that freedom comes with a cost to the community.

You are correct. I’m sorry, I confused it with BSD-4 as that used to be the 3rd clause. I updated my post and thank you for calling me out.

That’s still wrong though. The BSD-4 is literally FSF approved. It’s just not GPL compatible and not technically OSI approved, doesn’t meant it isn’t Open Source. But only on a technicality. The only difference between BSD-3 (BSD New) and BSD-4 (BSD Old) is the advertisement clause. It has nothing to do with redistribution, packaging, or modification of the code. OSI doesn’t agree with the advertisement clause so it’s not officially approved, doesn’t mean it isn’t Open Source.

That’s where I disagree. While it’s true that the only difference is the GPL complience it’s definetely against the spirit of open source and OSD. So it is source available license, but calling it open source is a stretch. The simple fact that it renders it unsable for GPL projects go against what open source stands for.

True as that maybe be, your original statement “BSD-4” is not open source is still completely wrong, plain and simple. BSD-4 is just having access to the source, it gives you significant rights over the source as well. The incompatibility lie with a technicality, an inconvenient on, but a technicality nontheless. Even the FSF agrees.