People disagree on this, but flamewars are just unhelpful at this point.
The source is open in as much as it’s available to read and actually do what you want with (self host etc)… you just can’t use the code to sell the same product yourself.
As a builder myself I think this is perfectly reasonable, and arguing the toss over whether this is “pure” open source is pointless imo.
For me, it is open source (it’s open, look at it, use it!) but it just happens to have a license you don’t like/agree with.
It's a marketing page primarily intended for a non-technical audience who probably don't know (or care) about the differences between Open Source and "the source is open".
Flagging the post for "false advertising" is complete overkill. It's also inaccurate, as at no point does the page claim Fizzy complies with the Open Source Definition.
If it helps, DHH has acknowledged this distinction elsewhere:
> This is done under the O'Saasy License, which is basically the do-whatever-you-want-just-don't-sue MIT License, but with a carve-out that reserves the commercialization rights to run Fizzy as SaaS for us as the creators. That means it's not technically Open Source™, but the source sure is open, and you can find it on our public GitHub repository.
Open source has a meaning. Companies and marketing people are doing their best to muddle it, but I'm dying on this hill and will never accept it.
If it's for non-technical audience they are abusing the fact some people know "open source = good" and try to benefit from that unfairly. They can use a different term.
The source is open in as much as it’s available to read and actually do what you want with (self host etc)… you just can’t use the code to sell the same product yourself.
As a builder myself I think this is perfectly reasonable, and arguing the toss over whether this is “pure” open source is pointless imo.
For me, it is open source (it’s open, look at it, use it!) but it just happens to have a license you don’t like/agree with.