The non-profit model is not a guarantee against corruption, but the for-profit model is a guarantee of corruption. > look at SpaceX which has made more progres

The non-profit model is not a guarantee against corruption, but the for-profit model is a guarantee of corruption. > look at SpaceX which has made more progress in a shorter period of time than just about anyone else to date. Toward what? Space vacations for rich people? Neat YouTube videos? To some hypothetical advancement which will only affect those with the money to pay for it? Can you give any reasons why I should give a shit that they've progressed toward other people's goals? > if an organization is creating value, then they should be able to exchange value for value. Sure, but in the rest of your post you're proposing that they should be obligated to exchange value for value. Ability and obligation are different things. > by acknowledging that we all must sing for our supper, we are forced to face the realities of the marketplace, of limited resources, of special needs, and so on. The reason most of us must sing for our supper is that those with the most supper have the ability to withhold supper until we sing. One of the most critical and powerful elements of free and open projects is declining to participate in that system. That is literally the only reason I care at all about free and open projects. > disclaimer: i'm a die-hard open-source software advocate. i just want to see it succeed. "Succeed" is undefined if you don't have defined goals. While money is certainly an existential risk to many "open" projects, acquiescing to a for-profit model would in itself be a failure for my goals for these projects (and indeed, my goals are shared by many who contribute to these projects).