It's good of the author to extend Futo the benefit of the doubt in this way.

The very first paragraph of their definition is: "Open source just means access to the source code.". If they are really that unfamiliar with the software industry, then their code must be a horror show. Personally, I think they know exactly what they are doing.

Trying to hijack open source like that is just scummy.

I wonder if they perhaps would be better off doing something to what Microsoft did with vscode: put the core under an open source license, then create a new product that integrates it under a restricted license with all Microsoft branding and specifics and release that as a product. That way the original Microsoft content is not subject to the open source and the true open source definition can be applied to what is the most important, the core. It wouldn't require any changes to the open source definition for example. It doesn't fix all issues raised, but may be a bit of a middle ground? Thoughts?

Pure jerks, clowns and morons. Trying to redefine definition of open source is crazy, insane and irrelevant.

Maybe Futo should move to “post open source” like “open core” principles.

Today majority of standards rely on definition accepted by a majority of people since decades, i.e. the open source definition by the OSI (https://opensource.org/osd), the free / libre definition of the FSF (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html), and the principles of ethical source by the OES (https://ethicalsource.dev/what-we-believe/). Trying to apply new definitions is very hazardous, will induce lack of consistency and may make people more confused.

However, like the OES did for ethical source licences, defining a new group of ideas / licences with associated values seems to be more interesting, like few years ago with “open core”, and also “copyfarleft” and “copyjustright”.

In a nutshell, why changing the rules of the game instead of creating a new game? 🙂

Futo's and Rossman's responses don't make their goals any clearer to me. Sure, they've avoided the issue by not using "open source" now, but why all this mess in the first place?

They're worried about developers of open-source software not getting paid? Then pay them to develop it (looks like they're doing that already, so great!). So why then keep bringing up that developers need to be paid, if they're paying them? Royalties?

Annoyed that big tech is taking open-source code and not giving back? Why not use a copyleft license? You can always dual license. Problem solved. Why make a new Frankenstein license that tries to do both, but just looks like it sucks at everything?