i feel like you missed the time between 1990 and 2005 when american libertarians caused a schism in the free software movement by popularising open source.
i’ve got a problem with what ESR calls open source.
like, the fact that free software is inherently political has been explored elsewhere in the thread, but the term “open source” was started by people who wanted to distance themselves from the free software movement due to them disliking that it was anti-commercial. the open source movement wanted more companies to adopt their code, in contrast to the GNU people trying to stop their work being absorbed into the old big iron.
i feel like you missed the time between 1990 and 2005 when american libertarians caused a schism in the free software movement by popularising open source.
You got a problem with open source? In /c/opensource?
i’ve got a problem with what ESR calls open source.
like, the fact that free software is inherently political has been explored elsewhere in the thread, but the term “open source” was started by people who wanted to distance themselves from the free software movement due to them disliking that it was anti-commercial. the open source movement wanted more companies to adopt their code, in contrast to the GNU people trying to stop their work being absorbed into the old big iron.
and they won.
Who won?
the “take our work and pay us nothing, please” crowd.
I think that if your license is MIT then you don’t really understand why free software exist.
i tend to use mit for things i see little value in, and something stronger for things i think may be useful.
but i don’t get to publish much code.