>>885175
>>885178
>>885180
Here's what rms has to say quoting from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html:
<[…]
<Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values. The term “open source” quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association.
<[…]
Here's what Bruce Perens has to say https://perens.com/2017/09/26/on-usage-of-the-phrase-open-source/
<[…]
<It is unfortunate that for some time the Open Source Initiative deprecated Richard Stallman and Free Software, and that some people still consider Open Source and Free Software to be different things today. I never meant it to be that way. Open Source was meant to be a way of promoting the concept of Free Software to business people, who I have always hoped would thus come to appreciate Richard and his Free Software campaign. And many have. Open Source licenses and Free Software licenses are effectively the same thing.
Some in the very early Open Source movement considered Open Source a rebranding of Free Software to avoid triggering corporate feels, but promote the almost exact thing, then when they had been pulled in reveal the last minute "It's actually Free Software!". But the other side wanted Open Source to be about programmers coding for free the hard parts of the system, while selling the core part under a proprietary shrinkwrapper license. That side, unfortunately won. So when we trash talk Open Source on this site, it's not Bruce Perens and his side, but people who are for tivoization and has no problem using the proprietary site GitHub.
>>886235
>Microsoft loves Linux
https://web.archive.org/web/20010615205548/http://suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html
>GPL is cancer
Open Source people when will they ever learn.
>>886245
>>886252
>>886259
All versions of the GNU General Public License GPLv1, GPLv2, LGPLv2, LGPLv2.1, GPLv3, LGPLv3 and AGPLv3 state that if you violate the license, you lose your rights to distribute it. While the terms of what consitute violations differ from version to version, but the result is still the same, no more distribution. For corporations that benefit from (((proprietary software))), (((Tivoization))) and (((SaaSS))), this brings problems. On the one hand they'd like to screw you over so hard it's rape. On the other hand they want to keep the right to distibute well developed Free Software. If they play fast and loose with licensing, they can end up in deep shit if copyright holders take them to court. That would mean that they would have to spend months, maybe years developing their own alternatives just because they didn't pay enough attention. That Microsoft can spy on everyone who run Windows 10 on their computers, but can't even follow a (relatively simple) software license free of jargon and obscure references to copyright law, should be telling.