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.