DHH & Open Source  ## Metadata - Author: [[December 8]] - Full Title: DHH & Open Source - Category: #articles - Document Note: ```markdown --- tags: [open-source, licensing, wordpress] author: Matt Mullenweg source: ma.tt reference: [https://ma.tt/2025/12/dhh-open-source/] date created: 2025-12-09 12:00 --- # 🏷️ Title: DHH & Open Source ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - Include links cited in or relevant to the article. ## 📝 Summary - Matt criticizes David Heinemeier Hansson (DHH) and 37signals for calling Fizzy’s “O’Saasy” proprietary license “open source.” - It matters because it confuses users, weakens the open‑source brand, and undermines long‑standing community definitions like the OSI’s. - Stakeholders: 37signals, DHH, open‑source communities, SaaS builders, end‑users. - Risks: term dilution, user lock‑in disguised as freedom, bad precedent for license “greenwashing.” - Bottom line: O’Saasy grants some freedoms but fails core Open Source criteria, so branding it “open source” is misleading. ## 📖 Main Content - Matt opens with a jab about wanting “the confidence of DHH claiming his proprietary license is Open Source,” framing the post as both critique and defense of real open source. - He praises Fizzy as a product but argues its marketing is overshadowed by DHH’s insistence on labeling it open source despite meaningful restrictions. - He notes O’Saasy lets users download, run, modify code, and access bug trackers and history—real benefits—but likens this to authoritarian regimes granting limited rights (e.g., recently allowing women to drive) without genuine freedom. - Core claim: freedoms at the licensor’s whim are not equivalent to rights grounded in a stable, shared definition such as the Open Source Initiative (OSI) definition. - He points out O’Saasy’s non‑compete clause forbidding licensees from offering competing SaaS products based on the software. This, he argues, violates OSI’s rule that licenses must not discriminate against persons or groups. - Matt connects this to propaganda tactics: states like North Korea call themselves “democratic” despite being authoritarian. Similarly, calling O’Saasy “open source” is rhetorically convenient but substantively false. - He frames this as “open‑source greenwashing”: appropriating the language of openness while retaining unilateral power and discriminatory terms. - The post defends the importance of community‑developed definitions (like OSI’s) and warns that ignoring them harms trust and clarity in software ecosystems. ### 🗒️ Notes - Matt’s “new prayer” line sets a satirical tone, highlighting perceived overconfidence in redefining “open source” by fiat. - He explicitly credits 37signals/Basecamp and Fizzy as “great” and “innovative,” separating product quality from licensing criticism. - DHH is portrayed as using rapid, confident rhetoric (“how fast he talks and confident he sounds”) to push a narrative that clashes with established norms. - Matt aligns himself with “Actually Open Source” leaders, emphasizing a shared, historically grounded philosophy and the OSI definition as a common standard. - Analogy 1: authoritarian vs democratic regimes - Proprietary licenses that grant some freedoms are likened to authoritarian states that selectively grant rights while retaining total control. - The central question: who ultimately holds power—users/citizens or the leader/licensor? - He stresses that freedoms that can be revoked or constrained by unilateral business decisions are not equivalent to rights backed by a constitution‑like framework (here, community standards and OSI criteria). - He quotes O’Saasy’s clause banning downstream competition as the key defect: it discriminates against a class of users whose “offense” is building a competing service. - This is mapped to the OSI principle that licenses must not discriminate against people or fields of endeavor; non‑compete SaaS clauses are incompatible with that. - Analogy 2: North Korea’s “Democratic People’s Republic” - Shows how loaded terms like “democracy” or “open source” can be co‑opted, while underlying power structures remain authoritarian. - Matt describes the O’Saasy labeling as “false advertising,” especially disappointing from a company known for opinionated, high‑integrity practices. - Implicitly, he calls for honesty in labeling: if it’s source‑available or business‑source, say so; don’t conflate it with OSI‑compliant open source. ## 📚 References - Open Source Initiative – Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd - 37signals / Basecamp – Fizzy product page and O’Saasy license (when available) - DHH blog / 37signals posts on “open source” business licenses - Background on “source‑available” and “business source” licenses (e.g., Elastic, SSPL, BSL) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - The author argues that while Fizzy’s O’Saasy license provides meaningful access to code and some practical freedoms, it includes anti‑competitive restrictions that violate the OSI’s non‑discrimination principle. Calling it “open source” therefore misleads users and damages the shared meaning of the term. - Using analogies to authoritarian regimes and propaganda labels, he contends that co‑opting respected language (“open source,” “democratic”) for systems that centralize power is a form of greenwashing and false advertising, especially disappointing from companies that trade on integrity. ## 📰 Newsletter A new post from Matt Mullenweg dives into Fizzy, 37signals’ clever new product—and, more importantly, its controversial “O’Saasy” license. While the code is visible and hackable, Matt argues the license’s anti‑competition clauses mean it simply isn’t open source in the OSI sense. For WordPress builders, this is a timely reminder to read licenses closely and protect the integrity of “open source” as a term. If you’re shipping SaaS on top of WordPress or contributing to GPL‑licensed plugins and themes, take a moment to compare your stack’s licenses against the OSI definition and the GPL. Want to go deeper? - Learn more about the [Open Source Definition](https://opensource.org/osd). - Review the [WordPress GPL primer](https://wordpress.org/about/license/). - Audit one of your project’s dependencies this week and confirm whether it’s truly open source or just source‑available. ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Clarify open‑source vs source‑available in talks, docs, and examples. - Prepare a short workshop or office hours on reading licenses for plugin/theme and SaaS builders. - Add examples and quickstarts that highlight GPL/OSI‑compatible patterns for WordPress integrations. - Publish a blog or video series explaining why license accuracy matters for developers and users. - Survey community understanding of “open source” and adjust educational content accordingly. #### OSPO - Document an internal policy that treats OSI’s definition as the canonical “open source” reference. - Classify internal and third‑party licenses (open source, source‑available, proprietary) and maintain an inventory. - Build or adopt scanning tools to flag non‑OSI‑compliant licenses in critical stacks. - Offer consultation hours for teams designing new licenses or business models. - Create guidance for marketing/legal to prevent “open source” misuse in product messaging. - Develop criteria and processes for funding or contributing upstream only to truly open‑source dependencies. #### Community - Host discussions or meetups on license literacy and ethical product marketing. - Provide maintainers with governance templates that clearly state license type and rationale. - Offer newcomers “first issues” around d - Summary: I might have a new prayer: God, give me confidence of DHH claiming his proprietary license is Open Source. 37signals/Basecamp has a great new product called Fizzy, whose brilliance and innovative q… - URL: https://ma.tt/2025/12/dhh-open-source/ I might have a new prayer: God, give me confidence of DHH [claiming his proprietary license is Open Source](https://x.com/dhh/status/1996627792008827342).  37signals/Basecamp has a great new product called [Fizzy](https://www.fizzy.do/), whose brilliance and innovative qualities are being distracted from by its co-creator David Heinmeier Hansson’s insistence on calling it open source. “One more thing… Fizzy is open source and 100% free to run yourself.” Thanks to Freedom of Speech, DHH is free to describe his proprietary software as Open Source, a form of [greenwashing](https://ma.tt/2025/10/greenwashing/), and even though he wants to “Well akshually” [denigrate those saying why this is BS](https://x.com/codejake/status/1996629945150591448), we as free citizens are free to explain why, despite how fast he talks and confident he sounds, he’s not always right. Myself and other “Actually Open Source” leaders (including DHH) who release software under licenses that meet [a common definition of Open Source](https://opensource.org/osd) benefit from decades of prior art and an incredible foundation that lays out the philosophy and definition of what defines open source. For the layperson, though, it might be helpful to break things down in an analogy of authoritarian vs democratic regimes, or a core question of who holds the power. Proprietary licenses may grant things that feel like freedoms; for example, Fizzy’s O’Saasy license lets you download the source code, run it yourself, modify it, and [use a public bug tracker, and you can see the software’s source control history](https://github.com/basecamp/fizzy). That’s cool! Also, in the past several years, there have been Middle Eastern countries that have just now allowed women to drive cars. That’s great! However, as a free person choosing to use this software, or choosing to live in a country, you have to ask yourself: Am I still free? No, you’re not. You are allowed to do some things that are in and of themselves good, but ultimately, it’s not built on a foundation of [an inalienable right](https://ma.tt/2014/01/four-freedoms/) or constitution; it’s at the whim of the leader. [O’Saasy license has this restriction](https://www.fizzy.do/license): > 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. > > Oh wow, I can’t compete with the leader. In how they choose to operate their business today, or however they might choose to in the future. My freedoms are at their whim. This violates rule 5 of the OSI definition of Open Source: “The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.” I’d like to choose software and live in a society that doesn’t discriminate. It’s not uncommon for people trying to take away your freedom to want to use the same words as those in truly free societies. North Korea calls itself the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Why? [Per Google’s AI](https://www.google.com/search?q=why+does+north+korea+call+itself+democratic): > **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). > > Yeah, really democratic. In that sense, you can say O’Saasy is an “open” “source” license. Perhaps a bubble of people will agree with you. But the rest of the world will use common sense and see that as a **fraud**. And most disappointingly for [37signals](https://37signals.com/), a company that prides itself on high integrity, it’s **false advertising**., DHH & Open Source, December 8, 01kc1kw8esfm3wjxkc3e16t0hn.