Capitalism corrupts. Absolute (aka unregulated) capitalism corrupts absolutely. Absolutely corrupt capitalist propaganda buries the truth that PROFIT is a 100% accurate synonym for THEFT. The only fair, ethical and equitable model is free software with monetization earned by support.
AArexx AAron Ruscetta
2024-09-25 09:20:20 +0000 UTC
It is a tricky thing. Big companies tend to really abuse these fully open source licenses, but I don't thnk restricting the rights around these licenses is the right idea.
The Linux Experiment
2024-09-25 08:58:56 +0000 UTC
Absolutely agree. I contribute to a lot of projects I like, but a project wiht this license will be immediately barred from my computer. I think i'd rather have a fully closed source thing, at least they're honest about what they're doing
The Linux Experiment
2024-09-25 08:58:08 +0000 UTC
It's insane, and I don't know who they're trying to fool: the only people who would be swayed by the "open" label they're trying to attach to their product are the people who will see right through these licenses
The Linux Experiment
2024-09-25 08:57:26 +0000 UTC
As an occasional Open Source developer/contributor I have mixed feelings. People do need more appropriate compensation for their efforts, and for-profit corporations benefit disproportionately, and often in sleazy ways, from other people's generosity. I no longer support MIT and Apache licenses for my own work, because of the ways they can be legally abused. On the other hand, it would be a shame to lose the entire ecosystem. I don't know what the answer is.
Steve C
2024-09-24 15:58:00 +0000 UTC
Agreed on the "fair source" this. I have seen this pop up more and ore over the last few years. I have no problem paying for the software we use and with some of our more critical pieces of our service, we pay for support. But, I have a hard time wanting to support this type of licensing.
Clint Eschberger
2024-09-24 14:30:30 +0000 UTC
You have it exactly right, these startups are trying to twist FOSS to make it so they can monetize the code without giving access to it and yet claim "openness", which is ridiculous on its face.