Was this an "open-source folks will do it for free anyhow" or someone wanting to save their work from obsolence?
(Earlier flagged post) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34527670
I doubt it. Open-sourcing anything is a lot of work. Managing open-source projects is a lot of work. There are no guarantees that that project will even get any external development traction or mindshare, and if this is still an important component to you, you'll be paying developers to build it out anyway.
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?
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
Hmmm.