Agree on the source-available clarification — this exact
distinction matters on HN and I learned it the hard way recently.
I just went through the licensing decision for my own project
and landed on BSL 1.1 with a 4-year conversion to Apache 2.0.
Framing it as "source-available, auto-converts to Apache 2.0
in 2030" reads as transparent intent rather than "fake open
source."
That said, BSL/FSL really only make sense if you plan to
monetize a hosted version yourself. For wrapper tools like
Claudraband that sit on top of an existing product ecosystem,
MIT or Apache 2.0 might fit better — you're not protecting a
competing SaaS, you're just sharing code.