It takes a particular kind of hybris to think you can narrow down the definition of "open" and "source" to match your pet interpretation, and believe everyone else just has to bow to that dominion. No.

Open source is when the source is open. Simple as that. The license then determines what rights are given or reserved. The lion's share of my open source work is under MIT, the most permissive license. Love it. I've done none under GPL, because I don't need code dump charity.

Open source is amazing in all it's many shapes and sizes. I use a lot of GPL software, even if I don't care to use that license for my own work. And lots of folks are already contributing to Fizzy under O'Saasy terms. Accept the gifts or don't 🤷‍♂️

That's exactly the point of contention. The delusional belief that because someone thinks "open source" means one thing to them that everyone else SIMPLY MUST abide by their definition. Fizzy is open source per the common definition of the words "open" and "source". Good for me.

You know this is just some shit people made up, right? None of us are under any obligation to abide by any of their little clauses. "You violated #6 of the rules we made up!!!". Lol 🤣

They can go right ahead. The license reserves the right to SaaS, and everything else is basically fair game. I do 95% of my open source work under MIT where not even that is reserved, so familiar with letting others prosper from my efforts.

Everything is marketing. But that doesn't mean it isn't also true. I don't troll (i.e. say shit I don't believe for a reaction). I say what I mean, and that does occasionally (okay, OFTEN!) trigger people.

All open source of note is governed by a license that derives it's credibility from the threat of a lawsuit. But you're free to release stuff without a license!

You can do whatever you want. There's no moat, no army protecting this narrow, proprietary framing of common words and a plain term. Be honest, be clear, but stop bowing to these self-appointed policemen of open source.