alt Hacker News> imo this is a hill people need to stop dying on.
As someone who was born and raised on FOSS, and still mostly employed to work on FOSS, I disagree.
Open source is what it is today because it's built by people with a spine who stand tall for their ideals even if it means less money, less industry recognition, lots of unglorious work and lots of other negatives.
It's not purist to believe that what built open source so far should remain open source, and not wanting to dilute that ecosystem with things that aren't open source, yet call themselves open source.
Replies
You should stand up for your ideals, but dying on the hill of what you call your ideals is actually getting in the way of that.
Because instead of making the point "this license isn't as permissive as it could/should be" (easy to understand), instead the point being made is "this isn't real open source", which comes across to most people as just some weird gate-keeping / No True Scotsman kinda thing.
> Open source is what it is today because it's built by people with a spine who stand tall for their ideals even if it means less money, less industry recognition, lots of unglorious work and lots of other negatives.
With all due respect, don't you see the irony in saying "people with a spine who stand tall for their ideals", and then arguing that attaching "restrictions" which only affect the richest megacorporations in the world somehow makes the license not permissive anymore?
What ideals are those exactly? So that megacorporations have the right to use the software without restrictions? And why should we care about that?