Comment by jrowen
2 days ago
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
Shit on, hardline, ornery, benign, selfish, good faith are loaded words. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine.[1]
> 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.
This is not the status quo in open source. And open source has been very successful. Open source is the status quo of much software.
Do you imagine many companies would make their proprietary programs source available if and only if they could call it open source? I do not.
> In practice, with a license like this, are people doing benign things hunted down and hassled?
Selling software as a service is benign in open source. And do you understand the question of if the license is good or acceptable and if the license should be called open source are different?
> I recall the brouhaha over the "don't do evil" license.
Your point was what?
> Can't we find a good-faith agreement between interests?
Anyone can use any license they want. Anyone can invent a new term if they consider common terms inadequate. Using a common term misleadingly intentionally and calling people triggered show bad faith.[2]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[2] https://i0.wp.com/ma.tt/files/2025/12/dhh-tweet.png
I will give you shit on, hardline, and selfish - my apologies. I need to slow down.
By status quo I meant the closed source / proprietary world, which also supports a lot of open source projects with contributions and funding. Source available would seem, to me, to be creating an avenue to move closed things in a more open direction, and bring more people "into the fold", per sé.
> And do you understand the question of if the license is good or acceptable and if the license should be called open source are different?
That question was motivated by the several comments expressing fears of being sued. I'm curious if there is a pattern of behavior among source available projects driving that, or if it's more just in principle. It was somewhat orthogonal to the question of calling it open source.
> Your point was what?
Fair—but, my point was that, there are people that are trying to do good things for humanity (not talking about DHH here), and open source is trying to do good things for humanity, and I don't know it just sucks to see them at odds and divided. But I do understand better the functional definition of open source and the zeroth freedom, even if it still feels a bit dogmatic to me. Or maybe just a clash between libertarian and liberal ideals.
> I will give you shit on, hardline, and selfish - my apologies. I need to slow down.
This was a good step. But you will not admit calling it was loaded to call people who prefer legal clarity ornery?
> That question was motivated by the several comments expressing fears of being sued. I'm curious if there is a pattern of behavior among source available projects driving that, or if it's more just in principle.
A license is a legal document. Its purpose is to communicate when and to fear being sued or not. Source available, closed source, or open source are the same in this context. Have software copyright owners sued license violators? Yes. Treating legal documents seriously is not just principle.
> Fair—but, my point was that, there are people that are trying to do good things for humanity (not talking about DHH here), and open source is trying to do good things for humanity, and I don't know it just sucks to see them at odds and divided. But I do understand better the functional definition of open source and the zeroth freedom, even if it still feels a bit dogmatic to me. Or maybe just a clash between libertarian and liberal ideals.
This was not a conflict between open source and source available. It was a conflict between open source and someone who knew better who used the term misleadingly for promotion.
Dogma to you is learning from history to others.
Libertarian and liberal may be the right words or not. But the impression the different groups have different ideals is correct.
1 reply →