Clarification on the MIT license and Pro features

[raayonsh]

On Flathub, I noticed Bruno is marked as "Proprietary", with the following description:

This app is not developed in the open, so only its developers know how it works. It may be insecure in ways that are hard to detect, and it may change without oversight.

This confused me because the Bruno website and this GitHub repository present Bruno as an open-source project, and this repository is licensed under the MIT License.

Could someone from the Bruno team explain how the licensing model works and why the Flathub package is labeled as proprietary? I'm curious about how the open-source repository relates to the paid/proprietary features.

I was also wondering whether the repository's licensing or its documentation could be clarified further, if needed, to make this distinction more obvious for users.

[raayonsh]

cc: @helloanoop

[helloanoop]

Could someone from the Bruno team explain how the licensing model works

Almost all of our codebase is OSS. And our work happens there. We have a upstream private repo where we add a bunch of features like Native Git UX, Licensing controls, Code signing infrastructure and bunch of other paid features.

The binaries get generated from our upstream repo and is published to github releases.

why the Flathub package is labeled as proprietary

For the reason that the binary is generated from the upstream private repo

I was also wondering whether the repository's licensing or its documentation could be clarified further, if needed, to make this distinction more obvious for users.

I think that's a good idea

[raayonsh]

Thanks for taking the time to explain and building such a great tool! Glad to hear the docs might get updated to reflect this.