Read on Twitter
These licenses aren't open source. They don't "maintain an open-source spirit". They actively undermine the open source definition because the creators are intentionally trying to pass them off as open source licenses when they are not. 1/6 https://twitter.com/acoustik/status/1309178543608393736
You can see right there in the thread that this CEO believes the "main creator" of a project should have special privileges when it comes to profiting from the project. That's not how open source works. 2/6
They want the benefit of others contributing to the code, but they don't want others to be able to use the code equally. And then they try to gaslight you into thinking this is rational with a misleading good guy vs bad guy narrative. 3/6
They think they have a "right" to be the primary company that profits from the software. The only rights they have in regards to the software are the ones afforded to them by their chosen license. This is why they have created new licenses, to give themselves this "right". 4/6
The sad part is that licenses like these guarantee that a software project can never grow past being a single company project. They artificially limit collaboration. 5/6
They want "protection" from other businesses "co-opting [their] work". That view is fundamentally incompatible with open source. Treat these licenses as what they are: proprietary. 6/6
