• veaviticus@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, the real answer is that most open source developers aren’t here for freedom at any cost. They’re here like a startup… Waiting to be acquired for big bucks. Open source doesn’t pay bills, and if a megacorp pulls up in a Brinks truck full of cash, I wouldn’t be surprised if 80% of open source projects sell

    • CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is why I trust GPL licenses over things like MIT. Fully permissive licenses are ripe for developers to sell out. GPL licenses ensure the code remains open and limits even what the original developer can do (so long as they merge a sufficient number of third party changes to make relicensing impossible). Permissive licenses allow developers to close off future updates should they desire. I haven’t looked at the license of Mastodon’s code to be fair, I’m just speaking in general.

      • Jeena@jemmy.jeena.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Mastodon is AGPL 3, so no problem there, the problem lies not in the code but somewhere else. Even if Mastodon was closed source, we have other code basis like pleroma, etc. but if the main guys start marching into the wrong direction then this is the beginning of the end.

    • cstine@lemmy.uncomfortable.business
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Came here to say this. Open source isn’t a noble crusade, and developers are not monks with vows of poverty.

      Until we get unlimited gay space communism, people will always take the money and avoiding that truth and acting shocked when they do at least listen to the people with unlimited money will always lead to disappointment.

      • Azure@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        as true as this is, it means the developers are the ones with more power to stop things being taken over, and clearly as you said, they won’t.

        truth is it means you can’t trust open source devs who touch with for-profit money at all, they’re all as corpo and crooked and are willing to sell everyone out for themselves.

        • cstine@lemmy.uncomfortable.business
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was trying to be a little kinder, but yeah, that’s my general opinion.

          It’s one reason I like code that’s actually owned by a foundation/organization that has all that pesky oversight and meetings and politicking because it makes things MUCH harder to be unilaterally sold out from under their users: it DOES happen, but it’s not just writing a check to one guy and hey presto next week your shit is broken/infested with malware/vanishes without a trace.

          They have their own problems and require funding to actually operate as intended, but it’s at least a layer between the ‘I made this’ meme and the users of the software.