The OSI can persist in its insistence that “open source” means transferring power to the user, but if they do, I think they’re missing the larger point of their movement.
Show this thread
-
By creating two worlds: one for the community, available for free, and one available to corporate overlords, available for pay and consent. I don't believe permissive licenses or even most free software licenses can create this split though
What if it's not a corporation but a country like North Korea or Iran? How can free software protect itself from being distributed across such national boundaries?
-
-
How can even proprietary software protect itself in those cases? If the US government wants to violate licenses to bomb children, there's nothing you can do.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.