|
|
|
|
|
|
by moribvndvs
977 days ago
|
|
|
This gave me a headache. First: > I have been part of the free and open source movement for the entirety of my 25+ year career in software. In the late 90s, I was one of the first people to advocate in my org for switching from proprietary tools like the Intel C compiler to open source alternatives like gcc. I’m happy to give the author the benefit of the doubt on their contributions to FOSS beyond what’s stated in the article, but taken at face value, they are trying to establish a tone of authority by establishing that they championed… using someone else’s free or open source software rather than paying for something? That might be interesting if led to a frank discussion on the value and cost of FOSS vs contribution or funding vis-à-vis general sustainability, but it’s not. Second, the term “open source startup” makes my skin crawl. If you’re a business focused on making profit, you’re just a commercial entity that happens to put out some open source stuff, using it to lure customers to your actual business. While personally I’m wary of this model as a potential trap, whatever, it’s fine. But this is not the only way FOSS gets done, and I don’t see any rethinking going on in the article. |
|
|
At that time, there was a lot of mistrust of FOSS (and the GPL in particular) in commercial organisations. That extended to even _using_ FOSS, and particularly something like a compiler, whose output "might be contaminated" by the FOSS licence.
That changed, slowly, in part because there were dedicated advocates who addressed people's concerns, showed them the actual licence text, etc, etc. It was a valuable contribution to the success of the concept of FOSS beyond just developers.
From today's perspective, I understand your concern, but perhaps this might help explain the OP's claim.