And yet, today's big opensource projects often are driven by big corps.
I wonder how rms would reconciliate that. Maybe we can get there the difference between opensource and freesoftwares?
In any way, having big companies publishing opensource code tell us how past we are the time when every single company will just publish proprietary software and let you guess the specs.
I think there's a few drivers for big corps getting involved in open source:
1. Getting intelligent people to work on projects for free. This is actually rarer than it sounds. But it does happen.
2. Protecting dependencies. Once a large company depends on a piece of technology, it has a vested interest in the future of that piece of technology. For proprietary code bases, this might mean buying the supplier. For open source, it means getting involved in the project.
3. It's their business model. Create a popular open source project and then provide paid support to organisations that use it.
4. Recruitment. Getting involved in the communities where skilled people hang out, and being seen to be involved in those communities, is great for recruiting those skilled people.
5... other reasons (I thought of a few more but decided not to attempt an exhaustive list)
It's all commercial reasons - how to make more money from this software project.
RMS' view often seems to come from a place where all commercial organisations are inherently evil and out to do their users harm.
I believe that 99.9% of the market for a piece of software are never going to be interested in taking responsibility for the safety of that software. You can give them all the rights you like, but they're not going to use them. The supplier of a piece of software will always be held responsible for its safety. It's not surprising that the supplier will attempt to exert some kind of control over the use of the software, if only to reduce their liability.
Again, commercial interests. Trying to do the best thing for everyone.
> RMS' view often seems to come from a place where all commercial organisations are inherently evil and out to do their users harm.
Yes, this was the thinking in early 2000', and indeed this was a proper reaction to the windows context back then. But I don't think that's what rms is fighting for anymore, I would state it more like : "if I bought it, then I own it", like when you buy a house, you can do any change in it you want. That's what is puzzling me in the linked statement, it sounds a lot like we're back in the 2000'. I guess shortness of statement is killing its details.
Stallman and the FSF advocate Libre (or "Free" as in speech) software, not open source. Whether you agree or disagree with them, there are philosophical (ideological, one might say) differences between the two movements:https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en....
I wonder how rms would reconciliate that. Maybe we can get there the difference between opensource and freesoftwares?
In any way, having big companies publishing opensource code tell us how past we are the time when every single company will just publish proprietary software and let you guess the specs.