Here come the HN comments from people that work at closed source companies or companies that profit off the free labor of open source devs, wailing and gnashing their teeth that it's not the purest form of open source blessed by Stallman himself and therefore is radioactive and doomed to fail.
Only here to reply. For context, I worked on open source while at a “closed source” company and founded a “closed source” company. I want to address at least a part of the open/closed pet peeve.
The problem, in general is not about “unpure” OSS.
The problem is “free riding” by slapping “open source” marketing without any real or meaningful open source contribution, nor any intent.
There is no ‘purest form of open source’. There is software that meets the open source definition and software that doesn’t. If you’re on HN it’s surprising you’re not aware of this.
stallman is from the free software movement which doesn’t agree with open source since FSF is concerned with moral freedoms.
