Comment by progbits
Yes. Nice product and fair license. But do not call it open source. Flagging the post for false advertising, will unflag if they fix the page.
Yes. Nice product and fair license. But do not call it open source. Flagging the post for false advertising, will unflag if they fix the page.
It's a marketing page primarily intended for a non-technical audience who probably don't know (or care) about the differences between Open Source and "the source is open".
Flagging the post for "false advertising" is complete overkill. It's also inaccurate, as at no point does the page claim Fizzy complies with the Open Source Definition.
If it helps, DHH has acknowledged this distinction elsewhere:
> This is done under the O'Saasy License, which is basically the do-whatever-you-want-just-don't-sue MIT License, but with a carve-out that reserves the commercialization rights to run Fizzy as SaaS for us as the creators. That means it's not technically Open Source™, but the source sure is open, and you can find it on our public GitHub repository.
(Source: https://world.hey.com/dhh/fizzy-is-our-fun-modern-take-on-ka...)