The title should be changed as it is not "open source" as is used when talking about software licenses, or as defined by the OSI [0]

From the git repo.

    For open-source use:
    
    If you are creating an open source application under a license compatible with the GNU GPL license v3, you may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3.
    
    For non-commercial use:
    
    You can use BrowserBox Pro for free for non-commercial use cases.
    
    This means government and public institutions, non-profits, private researchers and individuals are covered by this protection when their use is done without any anticipation of commercial application. This is provided under the terms of the Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0.
    
    From time to time, our non-commercial users may desire an license arrangement different to the one provided by the standard Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0 to suit their needs both now and in future, and such terms may be approved and negotiated on a case-by-case basis typically for a fee or other remunerative or protective arrangement.

It's licensed under multiple licenses, one of which is the GPLv3 which is not only open source, it's also free software. By every definition this is open source software.

keepamovin

Thanks! I know it's confusing, and I'm a little unsure about whether it's "Open Source" if like this, too. If anyone can tell me this is false, that's good as it's important to get right. But I think it's fine.

binarycrusader

Yes, this is similar to what Qt did / has done for years. I personally think it fits the definition of "open source" since it's multi-licensed.

ignoramous

  For open-source use
  
  If you are creating an open source application under a license compatible with the GNU GPL license v3, you may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3.
  
  For non-commercial use
  
  You can use BrowserBox Pro for free for non-commercial use cases.

  This means government and public institutions, non-profits, private researchers and individuals are covered by this protection when their use is done without any anticipation of commercial application. This is provided under the terms of the Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0.

Well, this isn't exactly dual license, but the presence of GPLv3 comprehensively nullifies Polyform, so it is FOSS. IANAL.

jacoblambda

It's better interpreted as decreasing degrees of permissivity.

1. GPLv3 or later

2. polyform non-commercial for non-commercial non-GPLv3 (or later) works.

3. commercial license for commercial non-GPLv3 (or later) works.

---

In other words, Use GPLv3 however if you can't use GPLv3 but are non-commercial, use polyform non-commercial. Otherwise buy a commercial license.

keepamovin

Yes!

ignoramous

You may want to reword as "licensed under either GPLv3 or Polyform Non-commercial 1.0 at your option" or some such, like most rust-lang projects do; ex: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup

Then give guidance on why one might choose one license over the other.