umbrel

This appears to share lineage with Umbrel. I haven't looked deeply enough to make any particular claims, but I feel fairly confident that one of these projects is violating someone's copyright. For an example, compare https://github.com/meienberger/runtipi/blob/master/scripts/a... with https://github.com/getumbrel/umbrel/blob/master/scripts/app.

There is a License FAQ [0], in which it says: > Selling Umbrel, including selling cloud-hosted instances with Umbrel or its derivates, home server hardware with Umbrel or its derivates, support services for Umbrel or its derivates, etc is not permitted under our license. [0]: https://github.com/getumbrel/umbrel/wiki/License-FAQ

> It's a perfectly justifiable decision... Especially when one of the VC firms that funds your project is also the one behind formulation of the PolyForm set of licenses, I'd imagine. At least, PolyForm is better, in some sense, than fully closed source projects built atop other MIT/BSD/Apache licensed projects (say, the V8 JavaScript engine ;), and never shared. The only reason I dislike non-OSI approved licenses are, the "users" of such licenses want to have their cake and eat it too: As in, they want to project open source ethos while also denying the advantages/rights otherwise afforded by Open Source, as defined by the OSI. Imo, source-available licenses are justified only when companies using it are honest about their intentions and forthcoming about the license's limitations. Nothing specific on Umbrel, but generally, misdirection

Umbrel's source code is public and there's no vendor lock-in: https://github.com/getumbrel/umbrel