> While free software licensing (e.g., GNU General Public License) attempts to force freedom on downstream developers, true open source basically says, "Take th

> While free software licensing (e.g., GNU General Public License) attempts to force freedom on downstream developers, true open source basically says, "Take this software, use it and improve it (or not), and license the resulting product as you wish." "True open source" "force freedom on downstream developers" GPL and BSD style licenses are both "true open source". If you are the upstream you literally aren't contained by any license and if you are downstream you are only constrained to offer exactly what you received and are free to write it yourself if that is too big of an ask. > For some bizarro reason, open source companies keep trying to monetize software even as the rest of the world has moved on The bizarro reason is that people literally need to eat. They can't "move on" unless they want to move on into the woods to live like a hobo. We either have to give up entirely on independent devs or find some way to pay them. > It's the wrong way to treat developers You aren't being mistreated if you don't like the license something is offered under. Writer is...gross.