Many of these bigger companies are "funding open source" by paying their employees to participate. Look at all of the corporate email addresses on the LKML for instance...
You mean they are "overtaking open source communities" by hiring 1 or 2 people.
I got a 2 weeks ban from python's discuss when I suggested that core developers who work on python as part of their day job could disclose who their employer is.
How about they actually fund open source in the sense of letting the public dictate the direction of software for the country, not a cabal of unelected people that only care for pushing changes that benefit corporations.
Open source would look drastically different, for the better I might add, if devs had a real choice in what to invest in.
Corporate control of open sources has not benefited devs or society as it stands. Continuing to let corporations control should not continue to stand. There is no reason why big tech can have taxes imposed on them where the public can decide what is best for them and not the devs at Meta that are fine with profiting from a genocide or mass misery.
You are absolutely welcome to start a project and exclude anyone who you think is unworthy of contributing. Software is not and never was a public good.
No, what I would rather do (read as am actively doing) is help elect people into congress that want to rightfully destroy Silicon Valley and bring the benefit of public software to the masses.
So you want congress to force people to write software that you want? I'm not sure I understand you. People write free software because either they want to, or they're being paid by someone who wants them to. Is there some third way to compel people to give you their work for free?
I got a 2 weeks ban from python's discuss when I suggested that core developers who work on python as part of their day job could disclose who their employer is.