I just don't get this discussion. And part of it worries me.
Open source isn't what you do to get vc funding, it's not what you do to build a unicorn (it shouldn't be). It's in the name, open source, it's a charitable act.
I worry this attempt to commercialise open source is corrupting it. For sure a lot of companies derive a lot of value from open source software but the user is irrelevant to the act of open sourcing something.
The problem, if you believe there is one, is that work that genuinely delivers benefit for society, is not rewarded economically. While the rich have more money than they can feasibly spend. The problem then is actually how we structure the economy and society, instead of applying a sticking plaster of commercialisation around open source and getting upset when big companies use the software under the licence available to all users, or relying on generous patronage, why not envision a society in which delivering valuable software for free is treated as more valuable than building Uber for dogwalking.
I haven't fully structured my thoughts around this so they're still half baked but it seems we're discussing the problem from the wrong angle?
I'm working on it directly as I am a fairly influential (in my small pond) OSS developer working for less than the poverty line (thank goodness I live in the boonies, plus I've been fortunate)
You have to SHOW the benefit and continually make that case that you are doing something beneficial, and that you are doing it open, that you are in fact giving it away as speech that can be taken and restated and rephrased and reused, becoming a broadening language.
The marketing angle is to continue to do this publically, in contrast to the 'rich and big companies' who absolutely try to exploit everyone and everything, and are horrible to work with or for.
You can't stop them being rich, or exploitative, or even from having a lot of power. But you can make people ask 'why are we using those things again?' because to exploit at that level, competitively, involves pressuring people really hard and taking their stuff away. It feels bad and looks bad.
You can do open source and be truly kind. You must start out wealthy enough that you can survive it, because so far people still align themselves with the power, they still will tend to side with the big company or whoever wields more money. That's basic human nature: animal, even.
But we can get 'em asking questions and being open to sharing and cooperative behavior… because that is ALSO human nature.
Open source isn't what you do to get vc funding, it's not what you do to build a unicorn (it shouldn't be). It's in the name, open source, it's a charitable act.
I worry this attempt to commercialise open source is corrupting it. For sure a lot of companies derive a lot of value from open source software but the user is irrelevant to the act of open sourcing something.
The problem, if you believe there is one, is that work that genuinely delivers benefit for society, is not rewarded economically. While the rich have more money than they can feasibly spend. The problem then is actually how we structure the economy and society, instead of applying a sticking plaster of commercialisation around open source and getting upset when big companies use the software under the licence available to all users, or relying on generous patronage, why not envision a society in which delivering valuable software for free is treated as more valuable than building Uber for dogwalking.
I haven't fully structured my thoughts around this so they're still half baked but it seems we're discussing the problem from the wrong angle?