0x4E4F@infosec.pub to linuxmemes@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agoSteve Balmer quotesinfosec.pubimagemessage-square217fedilinkarrow-up1946arrow-down129
arrow-up1917arrow-down1imageSteve Balmer quotesinfosec.pub0x4E4F@infosec.pub to linuxmemes@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square217fedilink
minus-squareluna@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoInsofar as “FOSS” is a specific, delineated, reified thing you can point to and describe, it doesn’t reject profit and capitalism when devs use licenses that enable corporations to use their work for free. That’s enablement, not rejection.
minus-squareCowbee@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up6·1 year agoFree - rejection of the profit motive Open Source - rejection of individually owned IP FOSS is fundamentally anticapitalist.
minus-square0x4E4F@infosec.pubOPlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoEven if they do, if they follow the license and release the source, that’s fine by me.
Insofar as “FOSS” is a specific, delineated, reified thing you can point to and describe, it doesn’t reject profit and capitalism when devs use licenses that enable corporations to use their work for free. That’s enablement, not rejection.
Free - rejection of the profit motive
Open Source - rejection of individually owned IP
FOSS is fundamentally anticapitalist.
Found the GPL fundie.
Even if they do, if they follow the license and release the source, that’s fine by me.