[whstl]

Yeah, Linux definitely has corporate sponsors. This is not a good rule of thumb.

React is also now owned by the React Foundation, so I also don't see why it would be problematic to contribute to it now that it doesn't (seem to) belong to Facebook anymore.

[Aurornis]

I think the anti-corporate angle is a bit extreme as it would rule out a large number of projects that are widely used.

If the project is truly open source and widely used by the community it shouldn’t matter if it is or was associated with a corporation. Contributing to it helps the public who use that project too.

[dvtkrlbs]

I mean the foundation is still mostly governed by corpo

[RobotToaster]

Isn't that true for the linux foundation?

[_cenw]

To a degree. But the corporate interest is spread across enough organisations that it's much harder for the Linux kernel to reject a patch solely because it's good for business, whereas a lot of corporate open source projects - even those with an OSI approved license - will actively refuse to merge code that competes with their commercial offering or simply isn't submitted by a customer. Hashicorp already operated like this long before they switched to BSL. Unfortunately having a project owned by a foundation isn't a good indicator either, because I know of at least one Apache project where the entire membership is one company, the CEO is the project chair and code is sometimes just dropped into repos in one huge commit.