3 ms·
You're saying that they should make their software proprietary to solve the problem of FOSS maintenance. That's forgetting the implicit requirement that it shou
by hiq 5y ago
You're saying that they should make their software proprietary to solve the problem of FOSS maintenance. That's forgetting the implicit requirement that it should remain FOSS.
- iandanforth 5y agoI don't believe there's any requirement that it should remain FOSS. In fact the situation provides a strong argument that FOSS is missing a key piece as it is currently conceived.
- amelius 5y agoIt's still FOSS, except if you are making millions using it and the entire issue becomes a luxury problem. That's what FOSS should mean anyway. The old definition can be renamed into exploitationware.
- hiq 5y ago> It's still FOSS, except if you are making millions using it and the entire issue becomes a luxury problem. I guess we can discuss what should be, but AFAICT it's just not FOSS according to the OSI or the FSF.