Huge red flag for me.
The BSL 1.1 was at least a known, reviewed license. A custom “Monospace Sustainable Core License” is untested, hasn’t been reviewed by the broader open source community, and gives Directus maximum flexibility to redefine terms at any point… I could never responsibly recommend a platform to my clients when the licensing terms could change underneath them after delivery. Not just a risk for them, it’s my own reputation at stake. You’re losing an entire channel of potential adopters with something like this.
The addition of a headcount requirement on top of the financial threshold, plus mandatory registration keys, signals a trajectory toward more control and more enforcement mechanisms, not toward providing enough value that users willingly pay for premium features or services. That’s the wrong direction.
I’ve built multiple production projects on Directus specifically because of the open, self-hosted model. This kind of change forces me to evaluate whether I can responsibly build future projects on a platform where the licensing terms are a moving target.
I’d genuinely like to hear the team address why a custom license was necessary rather than iterating on the existing BSL, and what guarantees exist that the Innovation Grant terms won’t narrow further in subsequent revisions.