A EULA in FOSS clothing?
I'm new to this particular controversy, but as a startup founder considering to open up their stack, I think what Confluent is doing here is very reasonable.From their own FAQ:    > Is Confluent Community License open source? 
    Strictly speaking it is “source-available.”  ..

So if Bryan's analysis holds up and indeed, you don't own your copy and instead you merely were given the right to use and modify it, as long as you abide by rules X, Y and Z, then.. well, isn't that okay too? Isn't that better than nothing?Is there some sort of hidden rule somewhere that if you sell (or give away) the right to read and modify your proprietary software, that then you're suddenly evil?I think I must be missing something, but what's the core argument here? This sort of thing makes the rounds on HN frequently, but I get the feeling that all but the most avid FSF-supporters are okay with 100% closed, proprietary, SaaS, etc software existing, and also okay with 100% OSI-approved open source. But somehow people get super angry about anything that falls in the middle. Why is that? Why is proprietary software nothing to worry about, but proprietary software with a "here's the source, have fun" notice tacked onto it totally evil?To be honest, I don't always buy the argument about muddying the definition of "open source". Yes, there have been companies that called their thing open source even though it wasn't, by the OSI definition, and that's a shitty move. But my impression is that Confluent is not one of those companies.