I'm 100% with you on that. Strong free software leadership (e.g. classic Torvalds), despite all its problems, is naturally anti-corporation.
Anyone with a real job in a moderately Big Co. can tell you that.
Anyone with a real job in a moderately Big Co. can tell you that.
Look at the who's who of the Linux foundation and it's all the big tech lackeys deciding everything. Even very questionable companies like Huawei are highly represented. I don't call that anti-corporate.
The Linux foundation is not equal to Linux. The entire point of the Linux foundation is to interface with the rest of the world's beuracracies, corporations included. Anyone can be represented by putting in the work and putting up the cash.
Ultimately corporate garbage rarely leaks into the kernel proper. Most of the filth is off in driver land, which isn't even that bad given it's always going to be a vendor landfill.
That is an extremely Americanized take on that awful member list. Is Intel's history of being anticompetitive better? How about their presence in Israel? Is Meta better? Microsoft?
To a non-American, many (most) of those companies are worse than Huawei. Actually, any company who share user data with the government (as shown by Snowden) is much worse than Huawei.
Implicit bias exposed by trying to remove Huawei from the list of companies that share data with their government, combined with whataboutism trying to distract from the meaning of the comment by focusing on a minor item provided as an example.
However GPL software being corporate-friendly can be a good thing if it leads to "exvestments" into public goods that create alternatives to corporate software (such as with Linux) in ways that are not direct investments into corporate aims