November 29, 2025
Open source, closed doors?
Stopping bad guys from using my open source project (feedback wanted)
Dev wants to block 'bad guys' from free code — commenters say it's not open source
TLDR: A popular developer wants to block “bad actors” and big companies from using his free code, possibly by changing the license. Commenters erupted: purists say that’s not open source at all, while pragmatists say go proprietary—sparking a bigger debate about ethics versus the definition of “open.”
One open‑source maintainer with a wildly downloaded package (200M installs in 2025!) wants to stop “big corporations” and “bad guys” from using his work, even if that means ditching the ultra‑permissive MIT license. He cites burn‑out, corporate freeloading, and even AI’s war ties as reasons to rethink “free for all.” The community? Oh boy, they showed up with caps lock and popcorn.
The loudest chorus said: if you want to pick and choose who uses it, that’s not open source anymore—period. Purists argued the definition is clear: open source means anyone can use it, for any purpose, no moral gatekeeping. Pragmatists piled on with “just go proprietary” takes, suggesting a paid license or “source‑available” model where the code is visible but usage is controlled. One commenter crossed a line with a racist “license” “joke,” and the thread instantly iced them out—proof that the ethics convo can get ugly fast.
Jokes and memes flew: “Open source? More like open season,” “Freedom 0 is now Freedom ‘no,’” and a whole lot of “pick a lane, king.” Underneath the drama was a real split: protect your conscience vs. protect the definition. It’s the oldest internet fight—what words mean—now dressed up in licenses, downloads, and morality vibes.
Key Points
- •The author maintains an npm package with over 200 million downloads in 2025 and seeks to prevent use by large corporations and harmful actors.
- •He proposes shifting open-source norms from unrestricted use to discouraging use by “evil” entities.
- •Cited influences include reports of corporate free-riding on OSS (e.g., curl usage) and estimates of OSS value at $12 trillion.
- •He is considering changing his project’s MIT License and exploring collective action among maintainers.
- •He requests feedback on advocacy methods (blog, documentation), licensing changes, and piloting approaches on smaller projects.