<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
  <title>xgp</title>
  <link>https://xgp.github.io/</link>
  <description>Writing by @xgp</description>
  <language>en</language>
  <atom:link href="https://xgp.github.io/rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
  <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</lastBuildDate>
  <item>
    <title>The Luxury Belief of the Open Source License</title>
    <link>https://xgp.github.io/posts/luxury-belief-open-source-license/</link>
    <guid isPermaLink="true">https://xgp.github.io/posts/luxury-belief-open-source-license/</guid>
    <pubDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>@xgp</dc:creator>
    <description><![CDATA[Treating a permissive license like Apache 2.0 as a mark of virtue is a luxury belief held by engineers whose employers can afford it. A license is a business instrument, chosen to protect a revenue model, and it should be discussed as one.]]></description>
    <content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2><strong>The license as a halo</strong></h2>
<p>Spend enough time in the Keycloak community and you will hear a particular argument, offered as though it settles everything. Keycloak is Apache 2.0. Anyone can take it, fork it, host it, sell it. And because of that, the reasoning goes, the people who build it stand on higher ground than the people who build Elasticsearch, or Redis, or Terraform. The license is not just a legal instrument. It is a character reference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
  </item>
</channel>
</rss>
