2 ms·

> the freedom to change the software to the user's needs. How is this not exactly helping end-users? Corporations are producers, not users. And no one is com

by saulpw 2y ago

> the freedom to change the software to the user's needs. How is this not exactly helping end-users? Corporations are producers, not users. And no one is complaining about MSFT or any other corporation using OSS as users, but only about co-opting it as a producer.

saagarjha 2y ago
The license discussed above explicitly tries to prevent Microsoft from using the software.
d0gsg0w00f 2y ago
The corporations _are_ end-users. They're just using a project to make adoption of their platform easier. Just because a user passes on the benefit of their usage to more than a single human doesn't mean they're not a user.
- saulpw 2y ago
  Sometimes corporations are end-users. When someone creates a fork of a project, they are no longer an end-user; they have become a producer.
  - unsungNovelty 2y ago
    OK. But that is allowed right? "Sharing" and "redistribute" are words you should have heard if you know what OSS. You are missing the whole point of Open Sourcing code. What you want is source available or proprietary software if you are bothered by this. And at that point, this has nothing to do with OSS. This is literally why when a company stops open sourcing something, community or other company continues the fork. When a product fails as business and when open sourced, the software itself thrives. Let me re-iterate, Open Source is purely about the software and the capability to share and make changes. IT IS NOT ABOUT MONEY, BUSINESS, CAPITALISM etc etc etc. It is not even about collaboration. That is something that came out of Linux development which is one of the most famous Open Source project. All that is necessary is to make the software licensed under an OSS license. And I don't have to get PR from you, I don't need to accept outside collaboration etc etc.

2 ms·

> the freedom to change the software to the user's needs. How is this not exactly helping end-users? Corporations are producers, not users. And no one is com

by saulpw 2y ago

saagarjha 2y ago
The license discussed above explicitly tries to prevent Microsoft from using the software.
d0gsg0w00f 2y ago
The corporations _are_ end-users. They're just using a project to make adoption of their platform easier. Just because a user passes on the benefit of their usage to more than a single human doesn't mean they're not a user.
- saulpw 2y ago
  Sometimes corporations are end-users. When someone creates a fork of a project, they are no longer an end-user; they have become a producer.
  - unsungNovelty 2y ago
    OK. But that is allowed right? "Sharing" and "redistribute" are words you should have heard if you know what OSS. You are missing the whole point of Open Sourcing code. What you want is source available or proprietary software if you are bothered by this. And at that point, this has nothing to do with OSS. This is literally why when a company stops open sourcing something, community or other company continues the fork. When a product fails as business and when open sourced, the software itself thrives. Let me re-iterate, Open Source is purely about the software and the capability to share and make changes. IT IS NOT ABOUT MONEY, BUSINESS, CAPITALISM etc etc etc. It is not even about collaboration. That is something that came out of Linux development which is one of the most famous Open Source project. All that is necessary is to make the software licensed under an OSS license. And I don't have to get PR from you, I don't need to accept outside collaboration etc etc.