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.
The problem is, I feel like more recent MBA lessons tell people that the “rising tide that lifts all ships” is a business death sentence, for reasons unexplained. Many of them now would rather sink the whole ocean if they believe that their business will sink a little bit less.
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.
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.
The problem is, I feel like more recent MBA lessons tell people that the “rising tide that lifts all ships” is a business death sentence, for reasons unexplained. Many of them now would rather sink the whole ocean if they believe that their business will sink a little bit less.
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.