unknown

DHH's new product Fizzy is marketed as "open source" but uses a proprietary O'Saasy license that restricts commercial competition, violating the Open Source Initiative's definition. The license allows code access and modification but prohibits offering the software as a competing SaaS product, making it "controlled source" rather than truly open source. This represents a misuse of open source terminology for marketing purposes, similar to how authoritarian regimes co-opt democratic language while maintaining centralized control.

DHH & Open Source

Ole-Martin

DHH, as a free individual, is choosing how he wants to release something he made so others can use it. Yet somehow we’re expected to bow to what a central organization decides is or isn’t “open source,” while DHH is the one being called authoritarian?
To me, “open source” has always meant that you can use the software on a personal level. If someone wants their project to allow more or fewer freedoms, that’s exactly why licenses exist—to avoid the whole “that’s not what I intended people to do with my software” problem.
And honestly, if we’re talking about democratic choice, I don’t see DHH suing anyone for making a better Fizzy alternative that doesn’t rely on his code. That’s real democracy: people choosing what they want in the arena of ideas.

DHH is a rich, entitled cnt. Matt Mullenweg is also a rich, entitled cnt (who also happens to be a whiny man-child).
They do not care about OSS. It’s all just a PR façade.
Here’s my point - why the f*ck should we care about what they say/think/do?

One moron criticizing another moron, LOL.

At least it seemed to me that Matt has not yet forgiven DHH for their criticism of Wordpress.
Interestingly, when someone uploads Fizzy to the cloud, adds a subscription and adds their own features and becomes popular with users, will DHH ever stop them?