Why single vendor is the new proprietary(opensource.net)

Sorry, I don’t follow your reasoning. Why would a company not making money be a relevant problem for the advocates of FOSS? FOSS is about freedom. It never had an opinion about money. Money has always been irrelevant. Some people may not like it, and they are free to not use non-free licenses. And FOSS advocates will warn users about that (as they did in the past). FOSS doesn’t have an obligation to offer a solution to every problem in the software industry.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

onlinepersona@programming.dev

0 points

6 months ago

Money has always been irrelevant.

This is the point. In the real world, money matters. Comments from an org like OSI on companies not being principled are akin to the church making comments on abortion. To these orgs it’s a black and white issue: either you adhere to their beliefs and are “good” or you don’t and you are “evil”.

Articles like these sound like out of touch preachers screaming about queers and family values. And people who blindly follow them with no arguments but “it was written by X” or “it’s written in Y” are just appealing to authority.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

canpolat@programming.devOP

0 points

6 months ago

That’s an unnecessarily strong reaction. Money clearly matters for some things. But that’s not all that matters. There are many people releasing FOSS without any financial expectations. Clearly, money doesn’t matter to those people on that context. Trying to argue that “money should matter also for those people on that context” doesn’t make too much sense to me. Nobody is forcing anybody to release FOSS.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

onlinepersona@programming.dev

1 point

6 months ago

Yeah, you’re missing the point and I don’t know how to bring it across. It’s best we end this here as it’s going nowhere.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

permalink

report

parent