[mnaimd]

> “The difference is not one of profit, it is one of philosophy. You believe software can be managed by a committee. I believe software requires an owner, otherwise it is dead.”

This justification is even worse than the domain squatting itself.

Some of the most influential software in history (Linux, Git, GCC, and yes, PuTTY) thrived under community-driven development. The idea that software "dies" without a single corporate owner is not just false, it’s insulting to the open-source ecosystem.

If Bitvise truly believes in their philosophy, they wouldn’t need to borrow PuTTY’s reputation by holding putty.org. Maybe they should spend less time on branding and more time studying how successful open-source projects actually work.

[TrevorStepnikkk]

I see where you're coming from, but I think your examples actually prove the opposite point.

I've always seen Linux and Git not as projects run by a committee, but as projects guided by a single, trusted leader. Linus Torvalds is the owner of the kernel's vision. He has the final say. That isn't community consensus; it's benevolent dictatorship.

So while the putty.org situation is shady, I believe the core idea is right: great software needs a final arbiter with a clear vision, not just a crowd.

[goku12]

I seriously doubt that they're talking about leadership when they say ownership. Otherwise it would make little sense because few foss projects are democracies anyway.

[arp242]

The thing is that this was his "answer" to what was really the quite reasonable question of "do you think this is ethical?" To start talking about this sort of thing is completely disconnected from the actual question.

Of course you can have discussion about these aspects of the open source ecosystem; this is a long-running discussion where many people have discussed and disagreed in good faith. I don't entirely agree with your take personally, but I also don't entirely disagree and can see where you're coming from, and it's of course an interesting thing to discus.

However, in this context, as an "answer" to that question, it's hard to see it as anything other than just self-serving post-hoc rationalisation for being a selfish wanker. This is classic nihilism where the abuse of everything and everyone is justified as long as you can get away with it. Everything that moves the needle and you can get away with is morally justified because it moves the needle and you can get away with it.