License clarification

[pombredanne]

I was a bit puzzled when I did read this claim at https://www.fizzy.do/#open-source

One more thing... Fizzy is open source and 100% free to run yourself.

But then the license at https://www.fizzy.do/license is looking like an MIT, with proprietary restriction and not at all an open source license.

It would be nice to avoid confusion and calling this license "open source" is confusing and ambiguous and may mislead users. I felt I was misled.

I do not see the same "open source claim in the code repo though, so may be this is only a marketing claim of sorts?

@jorgemanrubia I see you've been the committer on that license file https://github.com/basecamp/fizzy/blob/main/LICENSE.md so you clarification are much welcomed!

[jorgemanrubia]

Addressed here by David: https://x.com/dhh/status/1996627792008827342

[pombredanne]

@jorgemanrubia OK, pasting 's tweet here for reference

@dhh wrote in https://x.com/dhh/status/1996627792008827342 :

Love how calling Fizzy open source is triggering some because our MIT-derived O'Saasy License reserves SaaS monetization rights to us as creators. Same nerds will demoan lack of "sustainable OSS" or argue that handing over all changes under GPL is akshually freedom. Hilarious.