[yjftsjthsd-h]

> 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.

Yes, people object to pulling a bait and switch by taking something that was open source and then making it not open source.

> Instead, we should encourage commercial OSS companies. COSS companiesare one of the only venues for creating high-quality OSS projects that you can self-host.

We do encourage that. We also discourage commercial fake-OSS companies.

> I personally think the definition of open-source is problematic (and clearly biased by the lobbies of hyperscalers). Why aren't n8n or MongoDB considered open-source? (https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/blob/master/LICENSE.md, https://www.mongodb.com/legal/licensing/community-edition) Why does requesting that others not sell your product make the project not open-source?

Part of the point of Open Source is that the software isn't completely tied to a single company. If software is under one of those more restrictive licenses and the company goes under, the software is dead. If software under an open source license is developed by a company that goes under, one or even many other companies can continue working on it. This also applies while the company is alive, too; as you note, commercial companies developing open source software is a good thing, and preventing parallel development or forks is bad for the ecosystem.