[jart]

Those are some pretty twisted reasons to support open source. First of all, you are not a "user" if you use open source. You are an owner. Open source gives you the freedom to control the development process of the software. It sounds like what you want is the freedom to have other people serving you. Also, an inventor who chooses to reserve some rights to control their invention is not acting anti-competitively. You're disagreeing with both law and morality by thinking that. You are not entitled to anything. Open source usually happens because the inventor has nothing to gain from exerting personal control through legal means over their invention. So what it in effect does, is it gives you the power to take control and participate in its development, as an equal, rather than a mere consumer. You can't walk into open source with the consumer mindset because that's just not how things work. Companies like Microsoft that retain full control over their software will break their backs to serve you, because they're the only ones who can. But you can't expect that kind of service from people who are simply trying to give you the DIY tools to do it yourself.

[jpetso]

I am an owner if I can exercise control over the software at hand. That's entirely my point - there is open source that a rando like me can hop in and improve, sometimes requiring difficult discussions about how to go about it exactly, but always with the experience of the user as a priority. (User can be an end user, but also a developer who's using an open source library/framework.)

And then there's "open source" where the code is accessible but the user experience takes a backseat to corporate interests, CLA requirements provide a one-sided transfer of copyrights, hobbyist contributions are systematically steamrolled by optimizing build pipelines and development processes for internal company use, and large-scale directions are decided in a private meeting room without involving community contributors.

If an inventor reserves some rights to control their invention for their own benefit, I have no problem with that. There's plenty of commercial software out there, people are working hard to provide value to customers, and I've been part of this system too.

Where I take issue is when we ask for special treatment of "open source" whose main purpose is to benefit commercial entities in doing business. Companies should figure out on their own how to keep their mission-critical software alive, that's their business. If Django suffers because lots of profitable outfits can't figure out a way to finance what they build upon, let them eat dust. They'll figure it out eventually when their services start falling behind on all fronts.

As a charitable coder, I'm going to invest my time into providing value for end users, not companies. That's the kind of open source we as a community/society should focus on supporting and financing. Imho.

[jart]

You should be supporting and financing open source that elevates knowledge.

Knowledge is the resource that open source distributes which folks fight to control. It's like the fruit you'd grow on a farm. You could argue about whether or not the fruit should be distributed more to the city folk or the country folk, or ask questions about how much money the farm is making, but I'd say you should be focusing on getting the farm to grow more fruit, since that's the only way to be sure everyone becomes richer as a result.

Scientists do a great job discovering knowledge, but open source is what makes it useful and able to be used. Any open source project that's helping to elevate know-how is a project worth supporting.