> Another thing people can do is to disallow governments to use any software you produce by default. So, instead of having governments become part of an open (

> Another thing people can do is to disallow governments to use any software you produce by default. So, instead of having governments become part of an open (software) commons, using software that costs less in taxes[0], which they would then have a stake in supporting and helping to make better, you're proposing that they purchase higher-cost proprietary software from private corporations, supporting their shareholders? Yeah, that'll help. > the only way to start a change in thinking is to attach consequences. That's not how FLOSS has got where it is today, so it is clearly not "the only way". FLOSS succeeds by allowing everyone in, in allowing them to reap the benefits first, so that they understand the value first-hand. Then, they come to depend on it, and when they see how much it would cost them to stop using FLOSS, do they realise how much they have invested in the ecosystem. Keeping people out means that they never get entangled in the first place. [0] Or, requires less money to be created, depending on your viewpoint.