[jeeyoungk]

I think this is really unfair, in the current day and age, especially when there are "Open Weight Models" that are bending the definition of the FOSS.

I don't have a skin in the game, but I personally think that the definition of FOSS is too rigid and strict and is not evolving. There has been many challenges over time (LGPL's linking exception, tivoization, AGPL trying to fight against SaaS, Open Core business models, ...); and we are really bestowing very harsh moral standards for people who are trying to do the right thing.

For me, Sentry, being 10+ years in its existence (I used it ever since its logo was a Starcraft II unit), never participated in the usual enshitification of the software, being labeled as "NOPE" is disingenuous. I would gladly pay for Sentry because I love the software, and I also know that if shit hits the fan, I can self-host it (though the configuration for self-hosting got progressively difficult over time, but that's the complexity of modern SaaS stack). I can make similar arguments to other tools in this site that I'm familiar with.

[thedevilslawyer]

FOSS is indeed a moral and ethical stand on freedom, than on business realites (that's more why "open source" came about).

You can't have the FOSS cake and eat it too.

For eg: Sentry can release sentry-open under a fully free license from moral considerations, but choose not to do so because of business considerations. That's an OK choice to make, but you hence don't get to call yourself.

[bawolff]

Its ok for things not to be open source, but for the term to mean anything it has to have a definition. Vauge moral handwaving about "doing the right thing" doesn't really help give meaning to the term. A project can be open source and morally bad. It can be closed source and morally good. Authors' moral intentions are a totally orthogonal dimension.

[gr4vityWall]

> For me, Sentry, [...], being labeled as "NOPE" is disingenuous

How is it disingenuous? The current version of Sentry is proprietary.