[aniviacat]

When I write open source libraries I consider the ones benefitting to be the general public.

Even if my libraries were used only by mega corporations (which they aren't) there would still be a benefit to the public: If companies have lower cost, they will charge lower prices, benefitting customers / the general public. (And yes, they will lower prices. Most markets are not monopolies.)

[carlosjobim]

Open source never benefits the general public, because open source developers never make a product polished and user-friendly enough to be usable by the general public.

Instead, open source mainly benefits other developers. But at the end of the chain there has to be a product that is of use for non-developers. Because developing isn't for developments sake. And the person who makes that product reaps all the monetary benefits from the work that the others have made.

If FOSS people made complete products which were end user friendly, I'd buy the argument of benefitting the general public.

[aniviacat]

> developing isn't for developments sake.

[citation needed]

> the person who makes that product reaps all the monetary benefits from the work that the others have made

Which means that they can offer their product for a lower price, which then benefits the general public.

Companies being able to operate cheaper / more efficiently does benefit the general public, as long as the market isn't a monopoly. And as per my above comment, most markets are not monopolies.

> open source developers never make a product polished and user-friendly enough to be usable by the general public

I've been using Audacity, Gimp, Inkscape, uBlock Origin, and many others long before I knew what FOSS means. Spliit is also pretty cool ;)

[AlienRobot]

That's a very interesting perspective, thanks. :-)