4 ms·
not gonna lie this sounds like a borderline cultish view on things (only OSI-approved open source projects should get recognition, rest should be damned to obsc
by Pannoniae 3y ago
not gonna lie this sounds like a borderline cultish view on things (only OSI-approved open source projects should get recognition, rest should be damned to obscurity and ridicule)
having the source available is a huge benefit compared to proprietary software as you can view, introspect and patch your tool - having a permissive licence is a "nice-to-have", not an entitlement.
- zem 2y agoi didn't say anything about OSI approval, or even about "should". the fact is that a lot of people (myself included) have significantly less interest in a project if it is proprietary, and especially if it looks like the proprietor is going to exert control over it as a means of extracting value. and other people are fine with it, and might even prefer a project controlled by a company they trust to do a good job. and there's nothing wrong with either one! live and let live, with nothing to ridicule either way. what is wrong is when companies entice the people who would otherwise just have ignored them by claiming to be open, and then turn around and try to exert control once they already have mindshare. that makes people feel baited and switched and leads to a very natural amount of resentment.