Comment by immibis

Distrust is different from non-free. SSPL happens to be a free software license - that is a fact - which many people dislike - that is also a fact. The latter fact doesn't invalidate the former fact.

The incompatibility between *GPL and SSPL is a very good reason to dislike SSPL. I don't like it either, but I still think it's open source. Perhaps SSPL version 2 could be written to require that the source code for other parts of the service could be released under some particular set of licenses, which would make it much more compatible.

> OSI is not that special in this.

OSI is special because it's taken as an authority on what the term "open source" means, and it's special because it has actually written an official press release full of actual bullshit in order to justify its objectively wrong statement, while still claiming to be an authority and still being seen as one.

> I still think you'd need to back ... a bit more.

No competent capitalist entity will ever say outright "we lie for profit." It always has to be inferred from their actions. Look at what happened to Ratner's jewellery chain. If you outright say what everyone already knows, you can still get punished for breaking the suspension of disbelief. Same thing when Musk did the salute.

We can see that a capitalist entity did something which looks stupid on the face of it, but obviously advances its business interests. We conclude that either the board of directors were infected by brainworms, or they are advancing their business interests. The latter is much more likely. Burning social capital to gain financial capital is a tried and tested strategy.

https://opensource.org/sponsors