5 ms·
> Giant trillion dollar conglomerates repackaging and selling a product backed by free labor without contributing back wasn’t something they were contemplating
by sneak 1y ago
> Giant trillion dollar conglomerates repackaging and selling a product backed by free labor without contributing back wasn’t something they were contemplating back then.
That's not a bug, that's a feature. Freedom 0 applies to everyone.
Giving a gift does not confer an obligation, and "contributing back" is meaningless in this context. Someone using a gift you gave them to run a business does not harm you in any way whatsoever.
- sarchertech 1y agoIf it was merely about “giving a gift” with no obligations or restrictions there should be no open source licenses. Everything would just be released into the public domain. Free software has never been about giving gifts with no obligations.
- sneak 1y agoPublic domain is indeed an open source “license”. It’s what I release all of my code under (via the WTFPL).
- DaSHacka 1y agoThis is implying that free software is a 'gift'. It's not, it is an exchange. You gain the ability to use the library or program in exchange for releasing your changes and modifications. Well, unless it's MIT licensed, in which case you're kind of a sucker and it all but _is_ a gift to Big Tech.
- sneak 1y agoCopyleft is not congruent and coterminous with free software. There is plenty of FOSS that is not copyleft.