Counteracting the existence of companies doing proprietary software is the very reason why the free software movement was started in the first place.
Is this really true? I always thought it was to counteract the abuses of companies doing proprietary software.
MIT-license users are not bad guys -- I have both GPL and MIT code out there myself -- but choosing a non-copyleft license because it helps proprietary developers is not a good reason.
Proprietary developers might disagree with you. There is a lot of evil done by proprietary software companies. Especially...
...have a shot at fixing its bugs instead of having my government sign a multimillion dollar contract with a major...
...situations like that, but not everyone who does proprietary software is automatically evil. In my philosophy, evil comes about through non-consensuality. It's providing choice that stops evil and it's suppressing choice that encourages it. The emergence of open source software, then, is a good. The elimination of all proprietary would be an evil.
Is this really true? I always thought it was to counteract the abuses of companies doing proprietary software.
MIT-license users are not bad guys -- I have both GPL and MIT code out there myself -- but choosing a non-copyleft license because it helps proprietary developers is not a good reason.
Proprietary developers might disagree with you. There is a lot of evil done by proprietary software companies. Especially...
...have a shot at fixing its bugs instead of having my government sign a multimillion dollar contract with a major...
...situations like that, but not everyone who does proprietary software is automatically evil. In my philosophy, evil comes about through non-consensuality. It's providing choice that stops evil and it's suppressing choice that encourages it. The emergence of open source software, then, is a good. The elimination of all proprietary would be an evil.