> At some point, MrAlex94 will be made to compromise his principles. Except that at the point at which System1 crosses the line, MrAlex94 can fork the code (si

> At some point, MrAlex94 will be made to compromise his principles. Except that at the point at which System1 crosses the line, MrAlex94 can fork the code (since it's all FOSS), create "Earthfox" (or whatever) and start again. > But when you sell out, you give up control to The Man in exchange for that sweet, sweet cash. I have no skin of the game (other than not wanting free software developers who stray even slightly from the perfect ideal, to be stigmatised), but this sounds rather condescending given that: 1. (to the extent that I know) MrAlex94 has spent most of his working life on an open source project, with little financial remuneration, 2. he's (most probably) not personally getting some vast amount of cash from the transaction, just his project receiving enough support to be able to employ one (?) extra person and get "fancy" features like CI builds. If he had spent the time working on a closed source project at a company he would have almost certainly been far better off financially and he wouldn't have had to put up with such targeted attacks. I think that there's very much space for criticising the trade-offs of the decision, but IMO your phrasing was excessively harsh.