I agree with this. The new definition of "open source" has been crafted out of malice. _Anyone_ new to programming runs into this confusion, and that's evidence in itself.
MinIO made their source AGPL, but then cloud providers hosted the service "as is" and make money off it, with MinIO team getting zip. That still complies with AGPL but is not monetarily beneficial to the MinIO team.
At least that's my understanding. They closed source completely, but a source-available license wouldn't have run into this issue.
Would love to see something for diff views (e.g. side-by-side/unified). I mostly program through CLI agents, and so seeing the changes it makes is probably the primary thing I use the editor for, these days.
So why exactly did they close source, what were they losing by having AGPL? I thought AGPL + selling private licenses to corps was a fantastic method of getting some income for an open source offering.
The moves they have been making seem to be similar to what one would see if the VC money was getting tight or alternatively they were bought out by a Private Equity firm.
Similar to the way Broadcom did with VMware hiking prices astronomically for their largest clients, and basically killing the SME offering.
AGPL changes what it means to "distribute" the software. With GPL, sending copies of the software to users is distribution. With AGPL, if the users can access it over network, it's distribution. The implication is that if you run a custom version of MinIO, you need to open source it.
Perhaps you should've started to launch your shell in "~/home" instead of "~". Now your home is 1 level down, and the only downside is typing "/home" after the tilde.
