I think the bigger question is how many corporations are supporting foss projects? I’m sure a lot of us contribute a bit here and there if we can and I’m sure it makes a difference - but if some of these corporations, making billions of dollars profit, contribute just a tiny fraction of their wealth it could make a huge difference.
It’s the same argument as recycling, turning off lights, walking instead of driving etc. etc. - yes there are 8 billion of us and if we all do it, it will make a difference, but the difference we make is still not significant compared to corporate greed.
We are being gaslit to accept yet another scenario where we socialize the cost and privatize the profit.
This isn’t true, a lot of corporations use and benefit from the foss and they should be supporting those projects.
They should also be supporting projects that could replace the applications that they spend millions on each year. When your CIO says that they are using ‘whatever corpo system’ because a viable open source project doesn’t exist, they should start funding the non-viable projects so they can become viable.
As long as the end user is abiding by the licensing terms it shouldn’t be an expectation that any additional support is coming from anywhere. This is the nature of foss. The contributors should know this.
We don’t need the madman who thinks suffering is good to change their mind for sensible people to act, as medicine doesn’t need the madman who thinks alway throwing up is healthy. We place expectations on others everyday: like when we walk past a stranger. Perfect agreement are not needed to have expectations, or demand better from those who benefit from others.
I think the bigger question is how many corporations are supporting foss projects? I’m sure a lot of us contribute a bit here and there if we can and I’m sure it makes a difference - but if some of these corporations, making billions of dollars profit, contribute just a tiny fraction of their wealth it could make a huge difference.
It’s the same argument as recycling, turning off lights, walking instead of driving etc. etc. - yes there are 8 billion of us and if we all do it, it will make a difference, but the difference we make is still not significant compared to corporate greed.
We are being gaslit to accept yet another scenario where we socialize the cost and privatize the profit.
A corporation has no obligations towards foss projects, no different to any individual being made to fund them.
This isn’t true, a lot of corporations use and benefit from the foss and they should be supporting those projects.
They should also be supporting projects that could replace the applications that they spend millions on each year. When your CIO says that they are using ‘whatever corpo system’ because a viable open source project doesn’t exist, they should start funding the non-viable projects so they can become viable.
Worse they often report issues that affect them but still don’t commit resources to resolving those issues.
As long as the end user is abiding by the licensing terms it shouldn’t be an expectation that any additional support is coming from anywhere. This is the nature of foss. The contributors should know this.
Licensing terms only govern the legal aspects, not social and moral aspects.
Of course, but as we know there is no universal agreements for either. The expectations are ill placed.
We don’t need the madman who thinks suffering is good to change their mind for sensible people to act, as medicine doesn’t need the madman who thinks alway throwing up is healthy. We place expectations on others everyday: like when we walk past a stranger. Perfect agreement are not needed to have expectations, or demand better from those who benefit from others.
Then use a noncommercial licence.