@dankwraith Free software was never anticommercial. Quite the opposite, getting paid for writing software was always a right defended by free software advocates, and both FSF and OSI agree that a license that forbids commercial use (i.e. using or distributing the software for money) is not acceptable.
Copyleft licenses tend to be quite clear about this: the copyleft only extends to the people you decide to distribute the software to. You don't have an obligation to give access to freeloaders.
@dankwraith I always viewed the GPL as egalitarian. You want to take the software? Then you have to pay it forward. No freeloading allowed.
Oh, so this is the discourse everyone is subtooting.
But yeah, all the woke sustainability talk in FOSS now isn't about corps using stuff made by others, but that corp FOSS authors tend to be the ones that get paid, that confs tend to rely on corp sponsorship, etc.
That's a *very* different analysis.
OSI was born to remove annoying ethics from Free Software and to turn it into a fantastic marketing tool able to attract free labor.
FSF relation with the market is more complex: allowing commercial exploitation of FS was functional to spread it's values first, to fund it's development second.
Neither ever realized that software is a form of free expression and power, and that shouldn't be restricted by companies.
A Mastodon instance for maths people. The kind of people who make \(\pi z^2 \times a\) jokes.
\) for inline LaTeX, and
\] for display mode.