[2] Any software is source-available in the broad sense as long as its source code is distributed along with it, even if the user has no legal rights to use, share, modify or even compile it.
In the narrow sense,[1] the term source-available specifically excludes FOSS software.
[14] GitLab Inc. openly discloses that the EE License makes their Enterprise Edition product "proprietary, closed source code.
[25] The license is considered non-free by the Open Source Initiative, Debian and Red Hat, as it contains conditions that are unduly discriminatory towards commercial use of the software.
[26][27] In 2007 Michael Tiemann, president of OSI, had criticized[28] companies such as SugarCRM for promoting their software as "open source" when in fact it did not have an OSI-approved license.
In SugarCRM's case, it was because the software is so-called "badgeware"[29] since it specified a "badge" that must be displayed in the user interface.
[33] The Open Source Initiative rejects the TrueCrypt License, as "it has elements incompatible with the OSD.
"[34] The Free Software Foundation criticizes the license for restricting who can execute the program, and for enforcing a trademark condition.