>If I gift you resources, the trade is fair. A gift isn't a fair trade. That's why a gift is not called a fair trade. There's such phrase: "fair gift". > You

>If I gift you resources, the trade is fair. A gift isn't a fair trade. That's why a gift is not called a fair trade. There's such phrase: "fair gift". > You don't get to tell me what I do with my resources, and my labor and time has no intrinsic value. I never did tell you what to do with your time and resources. Why would you assume I did something that never occurred? I think your emotions are saying this. >The CEO in the description obviously wants to make open source developers build _something new_. That is, something they have not decided to gift to the community already. No exploitation doesn't just involve that. Even taking something already built without a fair trade is still exploitation. >We can argue semantics of the word exploit, of which I think you're being ridiculous, but even with your definition the situations are different. Not only CAN we argue this, we are arguing this. This is the central point. And it's not about MY definition either. It's about the colloquial definition of the word exploit. If you google it, you will see that I am right. There is no different "situation" here. You're simply offended by the word "exploit" because you have preconceived connotations attached to it. I don't have any skin in the game, I don't have to adjust vocabulary or my interpretation of the English language to justify my place in the world. That CEO is strategically making the best decision by "exploiting" open source. Anyone following that plan is also making the most cost efficient strategic move. He may be acting like an ass about it, but logically his strategy is correct. That's just reality.