[graemep]

Majority of projects, does not mean majority of code. Big projects have large numbers of contributors and far more code. The linux kernel is one project, a few lines of code might be one project too.

The anti-capitalist bit is not true. All the major open source licenses allow commercial use. Open source (especially copyleft) is encourages free markets because it makes it harder to erect barrier to entry or lock customers in.

I do not get why it is pernicious for employers to look at open source contributions either.

[prussia]

I thought all open source licenses allow commercial use, not just the major ones.

My understanding was that is the definition, at least according to OSI [0]:

> 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

[0]: https://opensource.org/osd

[bdw5204]

One reason why employers looking at open source contributions would be pernicious is that it biases them towards hiring people who have no life outside of writing code. That perpetuates a prevalent culture in the industry where people can't just write code for a living and do something else with the rest of their time.

People should be able to have other interests besides code and still have a livelihood.

[kbolino]

Conversely, I should be able to spend some time doing something other than working for the man or building something that has to be directly monetized. Contributing to open source projects, even in minor ways, provides some way for me to build a portfolio outside of the constraints of a 9 to 5.

[bdw5204]

I'd agree with that as well. Contributing to open source on your own time should be a choice not an expectation. It shouldn't be something that people do solely for the sake of advancing their career.