[j1elo]

Hence the full circle to my original sarcastic joke. The OS definition serves a purpose of protecting users, even the bad ones, and maybe that worked when the "bad ones" where a minority with small impact.

But nowadays things have changed. The "bad ones" are big fish, and have enormous impact. A growing subset of devs now start looking elsewhere, and a plethora of non-OS licenses start to pop out. People still want to give their work for free, as long as it is not going to help someone else get rich while the original author doesn't see a cent.

One day, maybe, some organization will study the current landscape, and write a new set of definitions that are able to catch the spirit of this new situation. I guess it's just a natural part of how things evolve.

[pabs3]

There is the Ethical Source movement, that aims to prevent use of software by bad people. The FLOSS community doesn't even have resources enough to enforce the widespread violations of copyleft licenses, so it seems even more unlikely that Ethical Source folks will be able to enforce their licenses. There are lots of other reasons for the FLOSS approach too.

https://ethicalsource.dev/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/mar/17/copyleft-ethical-...

[stolsvik]

https://polyformproject.org

[pabs3]

It didn't really come across as a joke despite the /s, it seemed like an earnestly held opinion that is, TBH quite reasonable, although it isn't something I would agree with.