The law that mandates that companies can't donate to someone on Patreon or help triage bugs or dedicate QA/security time to identifying issues is the requiremen

The law that mandates that companies can't donate to someone on Patreon or help triage bugs or dedicate QA/security time to identifying issues is the requirement for CEO's to demonstrate good judgment in managing the company by maximizing profit for shareholders. The law that mandates that companies have to ignore maintainer burdens is similar, but much more obtuse, mainly concerning commercial and workplace agenda issues founded on aversion to risk. The mistake I'm trying to point out is your analogy is wrecked, it's only a very small, but well scoped rebuttal. Your analogy, granted it has been taken out of the context of the comment, but it's important that analogies used to make a point actually map on to the concrete situation, and your analogy clearly doesn't achieve that. Anyway, let's move on to the substance of your comment. You want to shift the burden of fixing what is a very well documented and well understood market failure (free riding) on to corporates. I get that. You want to do that by shifting the burden of the fix to them. What you fail to grasp are the free market maxims which rule these companies. You are, in effect, asking people to stop writing articles about (say) wearing a face mask in public when faced with a public health epidemic and instead write articles about how animal husbandry practices in a small market in Wuhan is the real story. What your comment fails to capture is the systemic failure of Open Source. In the same way, an article about how a virus that is harmful to human health that focuses on hygeine ina market in Wuhan won't help anyone stay safe once it becomes an epidenic. You are, mistaking an epidemic for a malpractice suit. You don't solve an epidemic by suing the market traders in Wuhan, you write articles about wearing face coverings and public helath policy programmes like vaccines. So, your argument is bogus. Open source is broken, as a system, it is meant to be broken, it was designed to be broken in the same way Windows is designed to be broken, because it suits people that promote it. If you are making FOSS you are perpetuating a broken system and are accountable for that. If you design your house with no doors or windows and then proudly announce the fact it has no doors and windows and everyone is welcome to take a look around you don't get to blame people who wander in from time to time and take a look around. The rest of your comment here seemd to flip flop between whether the problem is systemic or not based on ideas of what the system is, and what it is not. I am not convinced by that analysis because the systemic failure is self-evident here and so to discuss whether open source software production is a system or not, or it is interacts with other systems or not seems naive. Your point about Minecraft seems to show some naivety around the way production systems interact with economic systems. Some form of interpretation from either the history of the industrial revolution or the economics corpus would probably be enough to disabuse you of your reluctance to admit the interplay between economic and technological systems. Your opinions suffer from a widespread tendency for peoples opinions to be wrong. I include mine in that category too, but at least readers may benefit from beinga given a choice as to how wrong they wish to be. Sorry, I didn't mean 'mandate' as in 'legal', I meant more like 'Social License to Operate' (SLO) which is more at the social/cultural level, although there are of course legal ways to keep corporations away from code... AGPL/Copyleft/Ethical Source/Noncommercial licening and Social Domain licenses all seem to be pointing to a new economic future that, despite outr differences in opinion here, I think we can both agree on, would be more desirable than the current situation?