0x4E4F@infosec.pub to linuxmemes@lemmy.worldEnglish · 10 months agoSteve Balmer quotesinfosec.pubimagemessage-square239fedilinkarrow-up11.31Karrow-down135
arrow-up11.27Karrow-down1imageSteve Balmer quotesinfosec.pub0x4E4F@infosec.pub to linuxmemes@lemmy.worldEnglish · 10 months agomessage-square239fedilink
minus-squareluna@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·10 months 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-up6·10 months agoFree - rejection of the profit motive Open Source - rejection of individually owned IP FOSS is fundamentally anticapitalist.
minus-square0x4E4F@infosec.pubOPlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·10 months 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.