That's not my point. I mostly agree with that. But I'd go a step further and say in the real world Open Source software doesn't offer enough protections against big tech companies doing big tech company things with your software.
The license here isn't an exemplar of what I'm interested in. But the discussions on this thread are. Anything that isn't OSI blessed is bullied.
We are already OK with saying you can use this software however you want, but when you distribute it you have certain obligations/restrictions. I think it's fine to go a step further and say if you distribute this software and you make $1 billion a year in revenue, you can't charge for it.
I think that's fine the same way I think it's fine to say a company has free speech despite not allowing people to threaten murder.
Neither the free software definition nor the open source definition see someone else using your software as something that you need protection from. This kind of thinking is contrary to the entire idea of open culture.
Someone using your software (for whatever purpose) does not negatively affect you unless you depend on holding a monopoly over some aspect of your software - in which case you have already decided that your priorities lie elsewhere than free software - e.g. you want to build a business.
I mean I wanted to release a project under a modified license like "if your corporation laid off engineers in 2022-2025 you may never use this project commercially" language, but I think MIT might still be best. Software is trickier than licenses for things like images where licenses like creative commons BY-SA are really good because it guarantees the photo stays in the public domain but you can also include the photo on your website (considered a collection and you can still retain rights to your blog post).
The problem with software licenses is that software is so much more composable. Like sure you can host a restrictively licensed project and call into it from your company's commercial app, but if you want to modify a module into your app that's tricky legally. Maybe I'm missing something here but I think the real risk is fake open licenses like elastic v2 (some YC company launched with it today) rather than the push for licenses like MIT.
The license here isn't an exemplar of what I'm interested in. But the discussions on this thread are. Anything that isn't OSI blessed is bullied.
We are already OK with saying you can use this software however you want, but when you distribute it you have certain obligations/restrictions. I think it's fine to go a step further and say if you distribute this software and you make $1 billion a year in revenue, you can't charge for it.
I think that's fine the same way I think it's fine to say a company has free speech despite not allowing people to threaten murder.