[JoshTriplett]

> I think that's perfectly fair. The community is quick to put whoever builds commercial OSS software on a cross the moment they change their license to ensure they still have a competitive advantage. Instead, we should encourage commercial OSS companies.

Complete agreement there. I'd like to laud NetBird for using AGPL rather than one of the recent VC-fueled proprietary-with-source-available licenses.

> I personally think the definition of open-source is problematic (and clearly biased by the lobbies of hyperscalers).

Open Source has existed since before "hyperscaler" was a concept that existed, and before Software as a Service was a going concern. Its definition has not in any way been affected by the lobby of an industry that didn't exist when it was defined.

One rationale for not changing the definition of Open Source is an issue of Schelling points / focal points ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) ). Right now, we have a common definition of Open Source; if everyone could put their pet restriction in ("no military", "no SaaS", "no AI", "no nuclear power"), we'd end up with a hundred variants and no ability to collaborate and share code across projects.