3 ms·

> What I find most sad is that most of the people on HN will rail against how evil Google is (or any other company) yet happily use their Open Source code and n

> What I find most sad is that most of the people on HN will rail against how evil Google is (or any other company) yet happily use their Open Source code and not complain that they're benefiting from what they claim to despise. It's a lame argument that just because an evil company like Google or Facebook or Microsoft made an open source product that you are using, you need to shut up and stop criticising them! The fact that someone uses their open source product is an endorsement to the open source movement, not of the company. The fact that a public for-profit corporate made a product open source doesn't mean that they have suddenly become altruistic - it just means that it made business sense for them to make it so. The fact that it is open source means that the company doesn't own the product nor can it control you. And the fact that it is open source means that the product is being made by contributions from the general public too, and not just the company.

tracer4201 7y ago
>It's a lame argument that just because an evil company like Google or Facebook or Microsoft made an open source product that you are using, you need to shut up and stop criticising them! I don't think that's what op wrote. It doesn't make sense that folks use open source code from these companies but then there's shock and outrage that these companies are also using open source code written by others. >because an evil company like Google or Facebook or Microsoft made an open source product It's hard to take you seriously when you blanketly dismiss companies as being "evil" (whatever that means). By what metric are these companies "evil"? Wow.
- chc 7y ago
  The "evil" characterization is from the comment you're defending. The comment you're replying to just appears to be using the same terminology to discuss the same concept.
- webmobdev 7y ago
  I addressed that: The fact that someone uses their open source product is an endorsement to the open source movement, not of the company ... The fact that it is open source means that the company doesn't own the product nor can it control you. And the fact that it is open source means that the product is being made by contributions from the general public too, and not just the company.
  - oefrha 7y ago
    What a gross mischaracterization of open source. > The fact that someone uses their open source product is an endorsement to the open source movement, not of the company ... Terribly ungrateful of you, but okay, it's not a crime. > The fact that it is open source means that the company doesn't own the product nor can it control you. No, releasing open source code doesn't imply signing away copyright or ownership. For instance, Mozilla owns Firefox (not only in the trademark sense); you can build another browser with their code, but you need to call it Iceweasel or something else. > And the fact that it is open source means that the product is being made by contributions from the general public too, and not just the company. Open source doesn't mean that at all. Good old immutable tarball dump can be every bit as open source as accepting contributions from everyone on the planet. In fact, check out esr's The Cathedral and the Bazaar. "Open source" is already intentionally or unintentionally skewed to represent many things it isn't, please don't add more arbitrary attributes to it.
    - TelmoMenezes 7y ago
      > Terribly ungrateful of you, but okay, it's not a crime. Companies are not people. It is nonsensical to say that someone is being grateful or ungrateful to some abstract legal construct. If the executives of some company decide to let their employees work on open source projects, it's because they think this will improve profitability in some way: advertisement, attracting talent, benefiting from free work, facilitating adoption, etc. Most of these companies benefit from open source way more than they contribute. Which is fine, but let's not assign human emotions to things that are not human. Being grateful to a corporation is the same as being grateful to your coffee machine for making coffee when you press the button. I am very grateful to people who contribute to open source on their free time.
      - oefrha 7y ago
        Ever heard of win win relationship? You can benefit from a company open sourcing a project and the company could benefit a lot more from it at the same time. It’s nonsensical to forbid other people from feeling grateful when they benefit from someone else’s (or should I say some company else’s) non-altruistic actions, even if you don’t.
BigFish12 7y ago
>just because an evil company like Google or Facebook or Microsoft made an open source product that you are using, you need to shut up and stop criticising them! It's the other way around, if you hate them and criticize them so much, you need to stop using their products.

tracer4201 7y ago

>It's a lame argument that just because an evil company like Google or Facebook or Microsoft made an open source product that you are using, you need to shut up and stop criticising them! I don't think that's what op wrote. It doesn't make sense that folks use open source code from these companies but then there's shock and outrage that these companies are also using open source code written by others. >because an evil company like Google or Facebook or Microsoft made an open source product It's hard to take you seriously when you blanketly dismiss companies as being "evil" (whatever that means). By what metric are these companies "evil"? Wow.

chc 7y ago
The "evil" characterization is from the comment you're defending. The comment you're replying to just appears to be using the same terminology to discuss the same concept.
webmobdev 7y ago
I addressed that: The fact that someone uses their open source product is an endorsement to the open source movement, not of the company ... The fact that it is open source means that the company doesn't own the product nor can it control you. And the fact that it is open source means that the product is being made by contributions from the general public too, and not just the company.
- oefrha 7y ago
  What a gross mischaracterization of open source. > The fact that someone uses their open source product is an endorsement to the open source movement, not of the company ... Terribly ungrateful of you, but okay, it's not a crime. > The fact that it is open source means that the company doesn't own the product nor can it control you. No, releasing open source code doesn't imply signing away copyright or ownership. For instance, Mozilla owns Firefox (not only in the trademark sense); you can build another browser with their code, but you need to call it Iceweasel or something else. > And the fact that it is open source means that the product is being made by contributions from the general public too, and not just the company. Open source doesn't mean that at all. Good old immutable tarball dump can be every bit as open source as accepting contributions from everyone on the planet. In fact, check out esr's The Cathedral and the Bazaar. "Open source" is already intentionally or unintentionally skewed to represent many things it isn't, please don't add more arbitrary attributes to it.
  - TelmoMenezes 7y ago
    > Terribly ungrateful of you, but okay, it's not a crime. Companies are not people. It is nonsensical to say that someone is being grateful or ungrateful to some abstract legal construct. If the executives of some company decide to let their employees work on open source projects, it's because they think this will improve profitability in some way: advertisement, attracting talent, benefiting from free work, facilitating adoption, etc. Most of these companies benefit from open source way more than they contribute. Which is fine, but let's not assign human emotions to things that are not human. Being grateful to a corporation is the same as being grateful to your coffee machine for making coffee when you press the button. I am very grateful to people who contribute to open source on their free time.
    - oefrha 7y ago
      Ever heard of win win relationship? You can benefit from a company open sourcing a project and the company could benefit a lot more from it at the same time. It’s nonsensical to forbid other people from feeling grateful when they benefit from someone else’s (or should I say some company else’s) non-altruistic actions, even if you don’t.

BigFish12 7y ago

>just because an evil company like Google or Facebook or Microsoft made an open source product that you are using, you need to shut up and stop criticising them! It's the other way around, if you hate them and criticize them so much, you need to stop using their products.