5 ms·

>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

>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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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.
      - TelmoMenezes 7y ago
        > Ever heard of win win relationship? How could I not? It's one of the most repeated clichés in the history of clichés. In any case, I am not denying mutual benefit or trying to forbid anyone from anything. I am just saying that if you are shouting "you ungrateful bastard" and the target of gratitude is a legal entity, you are just being silly.

chc 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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.
    - TelmoMenezes 7y ago
      > Ever heard of win win relationship? How could I not? It's one of the most repeated clichés in the history of clichés. In any case, I am not denying mutual benefit or trying to forbid anyone from anything. I am just saying that if you are shouting "you ungrateful bastard" and the target of gratitude is a legal entity, you are just being silly.