For what it's worth Gumroad left VC land several years ago.

https://sahillavingia.com/reflecting

Most of the VC open-source projects use open-source as a lead magnet/marketing tactic only, with no intention or desire of wanting people to actually use the software.

There is a distinction between those companies who actually license their stuff under FOSS licenses, but use it to get more marketing/contributors/whatever, and what companies like Meta are doing today, which is calling something "open source" in their marketing material, but if you read the terms and conditions, they call it "proprietary" instead and comes with lots of restrictions that aren't compatible with FOSS.

One is a marketing tactic, the other one is outright misleading.

Yep. Bait & Switch. Which is exactly why you shouldn't contribute to open source projects that require a CLA.

    The licensor grants you a copyright license for the software to do everything you might do with the software that would otherwise infringe the licensor's copyright, but only as long as you meet all the conditions below.

Am I going insane, or is there a reading of this that seems to imply you can use the software, to infringe on ANY work Gumroad has created? "...grants you a copyright license for the software" seems to imply it's talking about this software license only, but the second part mentions "licensor's copyright" which seems to not be defined, nor bounded. There's no mention of a copyright *for the software*... just the copyright license to use the software that allows you to infringe all copyrights from Gumroad.

I think they probably meant

    The licensor grants you a copyright license for the software to do everything you might do with the software that would otherwise infringe the licensor's copyright [to the software], but only as long as you meet all the conditions below.

I wonder if you can just reuse text or images from their corporate website as long as you personally make less than 1M$ a year, use their software and don't infringe their trademarks.

Awful license on multiple levels.

No you're not insane, it's much harder to follow than most source available licenses I've seen.

> Why the fuck is everyone in VC land trying to change the true definition of open source?

They want the marketing benefits without the costs.

The founder of Gumroad is claiming that [1].

> 14 years ago, Gumroad launched

> Today, Gumroad goes open-source

[1]: https://x.com/shl/status/1908090697984426227

Thanks, this is new to me and not something I could infer from OP's link.

I think the original title for this submission also called it open source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43580533

Yes indeed, but OP is not Gumroad.

Money; the same reason everyone in VC land does anything.

Which is super bullshit; cause now offering open source solutions many folk see it as a trick!

The definition of open source is itself a corruption of free software which came before it, and was corrupted by the same people.