3 ms·
It’s not quid-pro-quo. At the same time, does that seem ethical (even if it is legal) to build some dysfunctional business models exploiting somebody’s open sou
by hashtag-til 3y ago
It’s not quid-pro-quo. At the same time, does that seem ethical (even if it is legal) to build some dysfunctional business models exploiting somebody’s open source for profit and not contributing back?
There are many motivations such as mindshare, not reinventing the wheel and creating standards that motivate people and companies to contribute to open-source. Ripping-off other’s work - even when legally ok - is not right.
The system is designed to foster collaboration and not to enable shitty business models.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pessimizer 3y ago> does that seem ethical (even if it is legal) to build some dysfunctional business models exploiting somebody’s open source for profit and not contributing back? You're describing a thing that happens here, and not even bothering to make an ethical argument against it. People are just supposed to accept the premise, and go on to discuss the implications of it. > The system is designed to foster collaboration and not to enable shitty business models. "Spirit of open source" people are arguing that the system wasn't designed at all. You're arguing that open source licenses themselves have little or nothing to do with open source licensing. Instead, it has something vaguely to do with freedom and friendly and collaborative and other nice words. You don't have to be friendly or collaborative to produce either open source or Free Software.