The Pedantic Defense: How 'Legal' Gatekeeping Violates the Spirit of Open Source
A response to a common, yet misguided, justification for walled gardens in open-source projects.
Recently, I raised concerns about the open-source project, Archi, and its scripting plugin, jArchi. Both use the permissive MIT license, yet their maintainers engage in practices like geoblocking, paywalling support, and banning users—not only for VPN use but even for attempting to access download links from multiple IP addresses.
The core defense offered by a project member or loyalist was a pedantic one, posted on Reddit. The ensuing discussion led to the complete removal of my post by moderators.
"Neither their website, nor plugins or the support forum are covered by a software license. Moreover, they are not obliged to even host a copy of the code."
This response highlights a common misconception: that a software license only governs the code in a vacuum. It deliberately ignores the spirit of open source and the practical reality of how software is used. It's a defense that misses the forest for a single, carefully-selected tree.
Let's be clear: this defense is technically correct on the narrowest of points. But it is ethically and strategically wrong. The core issue is not about legal obligations; it's about a project using an open-source license as a shield while actively building a walled garden that violates the core principles of the Open Source Definition (OSD).
Deconstructing the "Walled Garden"
1. "They are not obliged to host a copy of the code."
True. The MIT license does not force them to be a host.
But here's the reality: They do host it. And then they geoblock access to it.
This is not a passive absence of service; it is an active act of discrimination against persons or groups based on location. This directly violates Clause 5 of the Open Source Definition.
The license grants the right to "use" and "copy" the software, but they are actively preventing hundreds of millions of people from exercising that right. The tool of discrimination is their own web server.
2. "The website and forum are not covered by the license."
This is where the "walled garden" is fully constructed.
By paywalling the primary channel for support and plugin distribution (the binary versions, to be exact), they are imposing a de-facto restriction on the "use" of the software.
For most users, a complex tool like an Enterprise Architecture modeler is unusable without community support and plugins. This practice violates Clause 6 of the OSD: "No Restriction on Other Software." The paywall restricts access to the very plugins and support that make the core software functional in a real-world context.
The "Spirit" of Open Source: Beyond the Letter of the Law
The spirit of open source is about collaboration, meritocracy, and open participation. It's about community.
What is the spirit behind these actions?
- Banning a user for a polite support question on social media?
- Banning users for using a VPN—a standard security and privacy tool?
- Refunding a paid donation (a token of appreciation) as a mechanism of exclusion?
These actions are the antithesis of an open community. They signal a desire for control, not collaboration; for exclusion, not participation.
Conclusion: Credibility Without Responsibility
While the project's maintainers may be threading a narrow legal needle, they are unequivocally violating the principles that give open source its moral authority and practical value. They want the credibility of the "open source" label without the responsibility of fostering an open community.
Otherwise, why am I writing this?
And why, quite rhetorically, does their official Bluesky page have only 149 followers after all these years?
A truly open, vibrant project attracts a community. A closed, gatekept one does not.
The evidence speaks for itself.
Top comments (1)
I had downloaded Archi two years ago and didn't use it much. I was looking for an open source app for modeling our enterprise. Our company has a branch in Dubai and Sharjah, but our HQ is in Shiraz. After a long time I wanted to update the app. Last week I tried to access archi website but it was not accessible. After reading your article I found out it was my IP address on the way that I couldn't update Archi. What a shame!