'Source available' is not open source (and that's okay) (dri.es)

In a recent clash over the definition of open source, Ruby on Rails creator David Heinemeier Hansson (DHH) introduced his new kanban tool, Fizzy, labeling it as open source. However, he faced criticism for using the O'Saasy license, which restricts others from creating competing SaaS versions—contradicting the Open Source Initiative's established definition. WordPress co-founder Matt Mullenweg promptly challenged this stance, likening it to a misrepresentation of democracy, emphasizing that the term "open source" is a well-defined concept shaped over decades by the community. This debate underscores a significant issue within the open source ecosystem: sustainability. DHH's licensing choice reflects growing concerns as many businesses profit off open source software while relying on community contributions for maintenance. Though DHH's approach enables experimentation, Mullenweg's WordPress operates under the GPL, making any license changes nearly impossible. This discussion highlights the need for clearer distinctions between organizations that contribute to open source and those that benefit without reciprocation. By shifting focus from definitions to sustainability, the community can address critical questions about corporate responsibility and the future of open source projects.