> For many people out there open source is a way to legally pirate stuff. Huh? In order to pirate open source products, assuming we are talking about copyrigh

> For many people out there open source is a way to legally pirate stuff. Huh? In order to pirate open source products, assuming we are talking about copyright infringement, you have to release derivative products in a way that is not consistent with the licensing requirements. Unless you are conflating open source code that is intentionally built for interoperable alternatives to commercial or closed products. In which case, that's not piracy, it's competition. > They would be pirating those tools and libraries if they were commercial. I think you are deeply confused about the role of open source tools and libraries. There is no shortage of cases where commercial tools have infringed on open source projects. There are also many cases where open source tools have infringed on patents or in some cases infringed on copyright, for example, where open source software is built based on reverse engineered or unlicensed access to source code. The preferred pattern is to have two teams, one responsible for reverse engineering a product and generating a specification, and another, separate team that implements the specification. That is not piracy, and is a legitimate use of reverse engineering that has been litigated fairly extensively (at least, AFAIK, and IANAL, but I have worked with so, so many of them over the last two decades of my career). > And on top of that they feel entitled to have their critical bugs fixed right away, again for free. Well yeah. That's not unique to open source. There is a reason that "karen" as a description of certain behaviors has entered the pop culture lexicon. Hell hath no fury like an inconvenienced user of a free product.