I think your response misses the point of my post. The point wasn't that they're trying to undermine Open Source, the point was that they fundamentally and unav

I think your response misses the point of my post. The point wasn't that they're trying to undermine Open Source, the point was that they fundamentally and unavoidably make their huge profits by extracting rent from a platform that they try to force everybody onto. They don't sell support, expertise or individual products. They get you in, lock you in and then charge rent. In infra teams in the UK at least the guys used to call it "Microsoft rent" with a straight face. The motivations of a company where that has and always will be the game plan are antithetical to someone who identifies freedom of coding with freedom of thought and expression. "We are pro open source except our entire business model which is build around a closed source platform on which we sell closed source products" Yeah they're worse than they could be but that's not really the central point. The legal thing you asked for a source on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co. Some people dissent from this reading of the case but it's also not that important, in practice they act like this.