alt Hacker News> What principles and values of the open source movement are protected by staunchly refusing to allow "source available" to call itself open source?
The part where the license says "Don't run this on your server and charge people money for it, or we will sue you"?
I know that everyone thinks of Big Tech absorbing your project into their SaaS when they do this, but there are other ways (say AGPL) to combat that. O'SaaSy seems to me to be essentially a "give us your code for free, and you can self host it, but don't dare to charge $$ for it or else!" license.
Now you're bringing lawyers into the picture for anyone who's hosting your software on their servers. It's very reasonable for a SaaS company that wants to defend its moat, but it's not Open Source.
(Talking of, I'm actually curious if anyone has seen actual self-hosted Fizzy instances in the wild.)
Replies
> The part where the license says "Don't run this on your server and charge people money for it, or we will sue you"?
A bit offtopic but could re-generation of the project with LLM (with for example prompt "rewrite the <repo> changing every line of code") help protecting from being sued? If yes, then the OS licensing is doomed to fail.
I didn't ask which part of the license violates OSS values, I asked what those principles and values are. I will infer that "anybody can do whatever they want with the code" is the principle you are referring to.
I kind of thought that it was more about stuff like sharing and personal development and edification and the ability to see inside and understand things. But let's get really divisive over the money stuff.