Open source is enabling large corporations to establish monopolies.
Open source powers google and amazon yet the authors get little return from it.
Open source has killed indie development.
Open source powers google and amazon yet the authors get little return from it.
Open source has killed indie development.
A different license could fix that but that goes against the philosophy; it would fix it though. People are trying that and a lot of other people are dead against it for good reasons, but how else can it be fixed?
Even if you don't make it viral towards revenue, then GPL works the best imho; at least the big corps must give back when they make changes. The problem is that many use non viral licenses and then it's just free for all. I personally do that as well at times, but it does what you say.
> Open source has killed indie development.
In what way? I don't understand the remark.
> In what way? I don't understand the remark.
Open source has reduced scarcity by such a high degree that writing quality code is valued next to nothing in monetary terms. Also, communities around closed source software have better ways to monetize, since there is usually no expectation from clients to get it for free as is from clients who are oss centric. Sure one can get the "opportunity" to work at FAANG just like their forefathers had the opportunity to work at Ford, Chrysler and other googles and amazons of the last generation, but that is not freedom. In other words, OSS reduced scarcity, shifted the balance towards a few centralised software powerhouses and has forced the vast majority of great engineers into 9 to 5 jobs.
EDIT: I am hugely in favor of open source as a means to share knowledge, but i am not in favor of OSS as free code for companies to monetise. Companies are entities that generate revenue, and for them, our effort to better the world is just a reduced investment cost, and nothing more.
This is a big assumption. How many open source developers do so for altruistic reasons? How many open source developers are funded by companies looking for good will.
There’s a simplistic view that developers only want money and that if they don’t get rich, that’s bad. That may be true for some, but those people would need to be stupid to desire wealth from software and still make lots of contributions to open source projects.
There are many benefits other than just payment.
I’ll also add that open source is really diverse and there are many companies profitable and happy chugging along or getting bought out (red hat, canonical, jetbrains, etc etc).
If people want to get wealthy fro software there are many companies doing so. Either through selling licenses (Microsoft) or just making secret sauce that doesn’t get sold (google, Amazon, Wall Street).
I would agree with you if there was no path to riches or there was some weird open source draft that forces people to code without pay.
But as it is now, developers can choose, and do, to donate their time and brainpower writing free/libre software.
And facebook has already been used for genocide: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...