I see the open source movement as being about developers sharing their work in order to raise all ships and dramatically accelerate the rate at which participants in that community can build cool software.

A lot of that benefit comes from not having to worry about licenses: pick platform components with known open source licenses, build cool things with them.

I think the rise in not-quite-open-source licenses (especially projects switching to those licenses) undermines the things that I value about open source, and further encourages more projects to make those decisions in the future.

One of the motivations of copyleft licenses like GPL which are a part of open source, was the freedom for users to see and modify code. The fact that the user works with the software in a browser rather than inside a native app is a technicality which shouldn't mean that the principle becomes invalid.

Of course, this makes it harder for developers to monetize their work. But, instead of framing the discussion in terms of these conflicting interests and finding a balance, the term 'open source' becomes a debate target (even though the OSI definition includes AGPL which is also radioactive if one wants to monetize the work.)

So we have three parties 1) Users 2) App Developers who write commercial closed source code for the user facing app 3) Dependency Developers who write code used by App Developers.

(There is a simplification here as 2 can be a startup writing selling a closed source dependency used by other developers)

Just as App developers would like to monetize via user payments, some licenses allow the same option for Dependency developers while simultaneously allowing source code to be available and modified.

The basic idea behind such a license is 'free of cost and inspectable/modifiable code for almost all users, but commercial for large companies making a significant revenue from the software'.

There needs to be some work done, to make the license predictable - which users it requires to pay, and the price involved.

In this matter, that pretty phrase “social contract” is at root a demand for ego massage from a) contributors that don’t actually believe in the freewheeling spirit of the BSD/MIT licenses but used it anyway, and b) noncontributors whose sense of entitlement is projecting as loss aversion.

The revised license is nevertheless a problem for component selection. Usage caveats are a landmine and thereby a coherent motivation for the Valkey fork.

"A demand for ego massage" is a pretty rude way to try to dismiss away someone's expressed feeling about something they cared about fundamentally changing.

I think it's a stretch to attack everyone who liked the idea of a totally open license as either disingenuous or selfish.

I agree, it would be, so I take issue with the extreme interpretation of the remark. These are merely two cases of foolishness. The first is of one’s choices not actually being in harmony with one’s preferences, the latter is simply a common cognitive bias. I’m not characterising talk of a “social contact” as malicious, but naive. Folks who want community obligations attached to their contributions can and probably should choose a copyleft license. Realising this in hindsight is a matter of personal growth.

I advise against relating to software as an emotional construct. Certainly for noncontributors but also even for contributors and primary authors. Redis is not your cat.

I'm ruffled by your repeated dismissals and arrogance BUT now I really want to name a pet redis so maybe you're coming out ahead in my personal calculus.

You taking issue with my "extreme interpretation" seems like a bad faith statement. Perhaps you really do feel mistreated by it; if that's the case I'm sorry because my intent is directly addressing the language you're using but not you personally.

To ape some of your phrasing, I advise against taking offense when others disagree with your approach or severity when you are attacking strangers, dismissing their reactions, gatekeeping who should get to care, patronizing them about personal growth, and calling them foolish at best.

I can only beg your pardon for my lack of emotion or delicate language in offering these admittedly blunt and unflattering assessments.

> this will dissuade people from using OSI licenses

Yes, because other projects will follow the pattern of successful ones.

> this will dissuade people from using open source components in their products all together,

Yes, because now there is a very real risk that after you have invested in using an open source license, the owner might change the license on you, which makes potential users more wary of open source projects.

> this will dissuade people from contributing to open source

Yes, for similar reasons to the above.

switched away to what? To a source-available license? copy-left?

Initially to a PolyForm license[1], which I then forked to create my own[2]. I informally refer to it as an "edu source" license (the source available is primarily available for educational purposes).

[1]: https://polyformproject.org/licenses/strict/1.0.0/ (hn discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24804223)

[2]: https://github.com/LGUG2Z/komorebi-license

Successful open source projects historically involve a bunch of companies lowering their costs by commoditizing expensive commercial functionality. Server operating systems, version control, programming environments used to be very expensive.

Linux, git, Python, Postgres, etc weren’t about getting rich, but about making something cheap and easy.

The paradox of these single company backed OSS projects is somehow making a big chunk of it free/open but collecting money off of other services. To me, I’m not sure that’s worked yet. Many will even say that these companies aren’t really doing open source in the traditional sense, but acting as commercial vendors that let you look at the code.