4 ms·
As usual when it comes to computing freedom, RMS was right[1]. "Open Source" was conceived as a way to market to corporate executives. It's unsurprising then th
by User23 3y ago
As usual when it comes to computing freedom, RMS was right[1]. "Open Source" was conceived as a way to market to corporate executives. It's unsurprising then that corporate executives took it for exactly what they were sold it as, a way to get developers' work without paying for it.
[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- canucyc 3y ago[flagged]
- canucyc 3y ago[flagged]
- spankalee 3y agoI personally get paid to work on open source, which is the opposite of what you're claiming here.
- pessimizer 3y agoRather, it's unsurprising that corporate executives took Open Source for exactly what it was designed as. It's left the anti-copyleft guys babbling about plunder and The Spirit of Open Source™. I'm honestly shocked that I don't hear them calling companies that get rich off OSS "settler colonialists."