3 ms·
Exactly. Finding the right balance is the right thing to do. I am not angry at cloud providers , but i am angry at OSI and their blind idealism that leaves us o
by romange 4y ago
Exactly. Finding the right balance is the right thing to do. I am not angry at cloud providers , but i am angry at OSI and their blind idealism that leaves us out there alone. I think that not solving the problem by them, hurt first of all the oss community.
- ignoramous 4y ago> I think that not solving the problem by them, hurt first of all the oss community. F/OSS means a very specific thing. If one can't possibly build a rocketship business, that isn't F/OSS fault. Of course, you've got an alt-movement in response to OSI and FSF's rigid adherence to its principles, speared on by tech companies who (think they) got burnt by other tech companies. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25896162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25896162
- ethbr0 4y agoI think romange put it well: balance. There's a lot of room between {completely F/OSS, that a cloud provider can implement and bankrupt the company supporting project development} and {completely evil closed source company like Oracle}. In the end, we all want good software, with the maximum amount of permissions and source, free. It's just a question of tweaking the support model to get there. IMHO, the "Don't call yourself OSS if you're not 100% OSI OSS" is counter-productive. But I understand why they do it, and I understand the history and abuses that caused them to do it. I'd just say if we no-true-Scotsman our approach in a way that precludes profitable, sustainable OSS companies... we're going to have less quality OSS. :(