DHH and the Definition of Open Source: An Analysis of Fizzy's O'Saasy License

The author observes the confidence with which David Heinemeier Hansson (DHH) asserts that his proprietary license constitutes 'Open Source.'

37signals/Basecamp has introduced a new product called Fizzy. While recognized for its innovative qualities, the product's co-creator, David Heinemeier Hansson, has drawn criticism for insisting on labeling it 'open source.' Hansson stated, "One more thing… Fizzy is open source and 100% free to run yourself."

While freedom of speech allows Hansson to describe his proprietary software as 'Open Source,' a practice often termed 'greenwashing,' critics are equally free to challenge this assertion. Despite his confident presentation, the technical arguments against his claims warrant examination.

Leaders in the 'truly Open Source' community, including Hansson himself for other projects, typically release software under licenses that adhere to a widely accepted definition of Open Source. This definition is built upon decades of established philosophy and precedent.

For a clearer understanding, an analogy contrasting authoritarian versus democratic regimes, or focusing on the locus of power, can be illustrative.

Proprietary licenses can sometimes offer what appear to be freedoms. For instance, Fizzy's O'Saasy license permits users to download, run, and modify the source code, utilize a public bug tracker, and access the software's source control history. These features are commendable. However, much like recent reforms in some Middle Eastern countries allowing women to drive – a positive development – the core question for an individual choosing to use such software or live in such a regime remains: Is genuine freedom truly present?

The answer, arguably, is no. While certain beneficial actions are permitted, these permissions are not founded on inalienable rights or constitutional principles; instead, they exist at the discretion of the licensor.

The O'Saasy license explicitly includes the following restriction:

No licensee or downstream recipient may use the Software (including any modified or derivative versions) to directly compete with the original Licensor by offering it to third parties as a hosted, managed, or Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) product or cloud service where the primary value of the service is the functionality of the Software itself.

This clause effectively prevents licensees from competing with the original licensor, regardless of current or future business operations. Such a limitation places user freedoms at the licensor's whim and directly contradicts Rule 5 of the Open Source Initiative (OSI) definition of Open Source, which states: "The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons."

The desire is for software and societies that uphold non-discrimination.

It is not uncommon for entities seeking to limit freedoms to co-opt terminology associated with genuinely free societies. For example, North Korea styles itself the 'Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.' The rationale behind such naming conventions is pertinent.

According to Google's AI definition:

Socialist Definition of Democracy During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and its allies used “democracy” to mean “people’s power” through a single ruling party, representing the working class, as opposed to the multi-party “bourgeois” democracy of the West. North Korea adopted this lexicon, as did other communist states like the German Democratic Republic (East Germany).

This illustrates how terms like 'democratic' can be redefined. In a similar vein, one might apply a loose interpretation to label the O’Saasy license as 'open' 'source.' While a limited group might accept this, broader understanding and common sense would likely identify it as misleading or fraudulent. For 37signals, a company known for its integrity, such labeling risks being perceived as false advertising.

It is worth noting that prior attempts were made to privately address this issue with Jason Fried.