samebreath

This quote nails the overall concern for me. What's the point of OSS if the API isn't also protected?

> Oracle v. Google-influenced interpretations of existing open source licenses would similarly extend familiar open source license conditions to activities merely involving APIs. Such reinterpretations would transform these licenses into ones that fail to provide software freedom and advance the goals of open source ...

> Microsoft released VS Code as open source, but the version you download from Microsoft is not open source. However, you have several options for using VS Code as open source or selecting one of its open source alternatives.

It's an interesting argument to make.

> VS Code's source code is available on GitHub. Yet when you download the VS Code application from Microsoft, you'll find that your download is licensed under the Microsoft Software License. This isn't an open source license. The difference is in the build process.

"Open source discourse typically encourages certain practices for the sake of practical advantages, not as a moral imperative."

The line between practical and moral adoption of F/OSS continues to be interesting to me. Has the tide shifted toward practical at this point, or is that perspective still a minority?

Yes, exactly. It's on the bottom of every breach page too:

> Breach data provided by Have I Been Pwned

I love that it's a visually engaging and simple way of showing breaches. It's going to be a lot easier to share this with family, then get them on a password manager.

I love this focus on the funnel.

Yes, a "funnel" isn't a completely accurate representation of how people buy. All models are wrong, some are more helpful than others, and this one remains helpful.