I don't really understand the intensity of folks that insist on open source meaning something very narrow and specific but different strokes. To me something is open source if I can use it and since I have no intention of ever competing with any of these companies in the SaaS space I don't really care that my rights are limited because they effectively aren't.
This is going to sound stupid because I didn't put any real thought into it but: shouldn't open source advocates also be against calling the GPL open source? It doesn't just constrain what you are permitted to do it also obligates you to take certain actions. I like the GPL personally and it's obviously different from these anti-SaaS licenses but isn't all of this really about freedom?
>I don't really understand the intensity of folks that insist on open source meaning something very narrow and specific but different strokes.
Words have defined meanings and are important for conveying information and communicating. If you just make up definitions to commonly understood terms, it leads to confusion.
>To me something is open source if ...
So you took a precisely defined phrase[1] that many people put a lot of thought and negotiation into (working with various stakeholders), has been in wide use for decades by thousands of companies and organizations, and hundreds of thousands (or millions) of developers, threw that definition out, and created your own definition because of reasons - how does help anything?
>This is going to sound stupid because I didn't put any real thought into it
This is going to sound stupid because I didn't put any real thought into it but: shouldn't open source advocates also be against calling the GPL open source? It doesn't just constrain what you are permitted to do it also obligates you to take certain actions. I like the GPL personally and it's obviously different from these anti-SaaS licenses but isn't all of this really about freedom?