Comment by quadrifoliate
19 hours ago
> They have the source code.
This can also be true, say, of a dump of leaked Windows source code. Would you say that that's Open Source? Why not? What's different between that and Fizzy? Fizzy's creators will also sue you in certain cases.
> Why is it so important that they can use it for whatever they want?
It's important only in terms of the ethics of calling yourself open. The OSI (and many other commenters here, and me) are saying that open source should be defined by lack of restrictions on the usage; DHH etc. are saying that it should be defined by lack of restrictions on the access.
The reasons why I think usage-based definition rather than access-based definitions are more reasonable are:
- Providing access to code is relatively cheap/easy today. This wasn't always true in the past.
- Usage has a lot more variables than access. If you start putting restrictions on it, anyone using it has to stop and think about their usage to ensure it's not falling afoul of the restrictions. For example, if I put Fizzy on my server and provide free access to it for anyone on the internet without the 1000-item limit, does that qualify as "directly compet[ing] with the original Licensor by offering it to third parties as a hosted Cloud Service"? I would hope not, but if I want to make sure I have to pay a lawyer hundreds of dollars.
The leak is not open source because it was not blessed by the creators. If we're worried about rug pull stuff, maybe there's some type of governance or commitments that can be worked out. Ultimately yeah we're at the whim of the company, but that's the status quo, this still seems like a step in the right direction to be encouraged and fostered and not shit on. I just don't think the hardline strategy is really winning hearts and minds to the cause.
> If you start putting restrictions on it, anyone using it has to stop and think about their usage to ensure it's not falling afoul of the restrictions.
Is this really that ornery? In practice, with a license like this, are people doing benign things hunted down and hassled? The whole "I can do whatever I want and never get sued" angle kinda seems a little selfish or at least not super good-samaritan? I recall the brouhaha over the "don't do evil" license. Can't we find a good-faith agreement between interests?
I replied to a sibling with further comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46221378