I would understand if Canonical want a new cow to milk, but why are developers even agreeing to this? Are they out of their minds?? Do they actually want companies to steal their code? Or is this some reverse-uno move I don’t see yet? I cannot fathom any FOSS project not using the AGPL anymore. It’s like they’re painting their faces with “here, take my stuff and don’t contribute anything back, that’s totally fine”

  • marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    In this case, yes. If you were altruistic toward the community, shareholders could instruct devs to use it anyway so it works out for both groups. Doesn’t work the other way around

    • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      How does a corporation using it obstruct independent developers from using it under the same license? I don’t see a compelling case for them being mutually exclusive

        • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Oh so you’re saying the companies are not altruistic? I’d agree. I thought you were saying that the people making the FOSS were not being altruistic.

          • marauding_gibberish142@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            The very act of writing FOSS code is altruistic. Indeed, I’m looking at the big corporations when I point and say “thief!”.

            Some companies do work that I like though. Mullvad is a prime example. Recently I’ve been looking at Nym and I like their ideas and work. I really liked that the big giants like Google and IBM collaborated for k8s. I believe Uber has done something wonderful for the FOSS community too but I don’t remember what it is. The fact is that they can if they try