zlacker

>>isaacf+(OP)
I like that the corporate bullshit just keeps getting more. Google’s “don’t be evil” is many steps down from openai having open in their name.

They should be called OpenAI with (not open) in small print.

I argue a lot over “open source” software with non-OSI license and sometimes worry if I’m too pedantic. But I think it’s important to use terms accurately and not to confuse reality more than it already is by calling stuff that’s not one thing by that thing’s name.

I wonder if google and openai truly started out with these ideals and were just corrupted and overpowered by standard organizational greed. Or it was always bullshit.

>>prepen+kp
A lot of non-OSI open source licenses are ironically motivated by other forms of bad corporate behavior: take open source, SaaSify it, make massive profits, give nothing back. In some cases they go so far as to rebrand it and give no credit. Licenses like the SSPL try to restrict this behavior.

>>api+jq
The AGPL (also) does this explicitly, but really there should be a general OSS license that forbids commercial use. That way the software stays where it is most needed and doesn't get abused to make profit. Is there such a license?

>>krageo+at
I recall the FSF being pretty adamant that a license restricting commercial use would be a non-free license by default.

>>iib+qw
Yep the OSI’s position is that FOSS is free labor for SaaS and giant corporations. Look at who funds the OSI and I think there is a clear case of capture here.

SaaS is the least free model for software. Closed source commercial is far more open and free than SaaS.

>>api+q51
Yes, it is important to understand that using open-source software in a commercial SaaS is immoral.

However, it should be noted that it applies only to open-source projects that were created by billion-dollar startups like Mongo or Elastic. Using software like Apache, Linux or Postgres is totally fine because it doesn't deprive SV startups (that are so precious to HN) of additional profits.