I'm sick of open source "purism" too.

It's almost all caused by the OSI.

The OSI is owned and operated by the hyperscalers, who benefit from this in-fighting and license purity bullshit.

Is the only open source free labor? Some people think so.

Are open core and fair source licenses invalid? Yeah - let's make everything BSD/MIT so managed versions can go live inside AWS and GCP and make those companies billions, while the original authors see limited or no upside.

The fact is - open source needs salients to attack the hyperscalers. It needs to pay its engineers. It needs to expand and grow. One of the ways to do that is building a business around it. Another way is building an open core plus services that drive revenue to sustain and grow the business.

Having VC money doesn't invalidate what's being done. It helps the experiment evolve faster.

Nobody's here complaining about Google and Microsoft and Amazon, yet that's where 99.9% of our ire should be directed. And yet we're pouring venom on this small and valiant effort.

We dump on Redis and Elastic while they're being torn to shreds and eaten by trillion dollar giants.

This entire conversation has become perverted to the point we're no longer talking about what matters: freedom to operate independently of the giants that control the world.

Instead we're complaining about people taking a risk, trying to actually do something impactful that matters.

sorry but your post makes no sense.

Open source is a kind of licenses. Hyperscalers are a kind of service providers.

You cannot oppose these 2, these are completely unrelated concepts.

OSI is a plague and many people here swear by it blindly. They hate the big hyperscalers but play right into their arms.

[dead]