>>12216>Fedora is making FOSS-hostile statementsOK that looks bad but you have to prioritize your analysis on what they do. So far Fedora has always published their sources and as far as i know they have not fucked with any of the forked projects.
>Very curious expression there "an open source license, one approved by the Open Source Initiative"how authoritative.. after all, they do have "Open Source" in their corporate name lol
I know that "corporate opensource" is intended as a ploy to eventually close off software development. And their strange communication that tries to mimic an organic collective is really cringe. But this is a concession none the less, consider how much more hostile corporate PR used to be.
The genuine FOSS system means free labor through contributions. The openness of genuine FOSS also means more available expert labor power because people get into these fields through playing around with computers and software as a hobby. Nobody buys a pricey enterprise license to play around with server software, they'll play around with the stuff they get for free and without hassle. All these battles already happened in the 90s and the proprietary locked down crap failed because it requires jumping through too many hoops, that are not the computer stuff that's actually interesting to people.
IBM is going to make a bunch of money from people who now have to panic-buy a subscription in order to prevent their systems from breaking, but in the long term RHEL is going to fade into an obscure niche like so many other things that IBM has ruined. It's possible that they might one day sell RHEL because it faded too much and then it comes back into the FOSS world.
For most people none of this is really an ideological question but a practical question. Proper FOSS means that nobody will pull the rug from under your feet. Many people go along with "corporate open source" because they think it means that corporations are granting assurances. And the REHL affair probably has burned enough people that many will reconsider this assessment. The is an ongoing process where all the corporate bullying of this type produces more people that think like Stallmann.
For the ideological question.
I think proprietary closed source stuff is derived from a in part feudal and part capitalist mode of production. It's a system that was devised in the 1800s and adapted to the information system from that era. Today it's an anachronism upheld by institutional momentum. It's mainly a tool for monopoly capital, proprietary stuff is not more profitable unless you're already a big monopoly. Which is probably a reason why free market ideologues are also strongly opposed to proprietary licenses.
FOSS is something that emerged solely from a capitalist mode of production, it has no feudal influences. I don't think that Canonical for example is being a bad capitalist for upholding FOSS. They will likely get a lot of RHEL refugees now and grow their customer base. All the people that use FOSS software for free, that's basically advertisement that costs nothing, and the free contributions that originate from this make this a net gain. While all the bullying associated for imposing proprietary restrictions, represents a cost and is negative advertisement.
Socialists like FOSS because it's the progressive side of capitalism, it's a better way of producing technology.
The ideologically socialist method would be something that actively turns proprietary source software into open source source software. I don't think that anybody has figured out a trick for doing this yet, you know other than through a revolution that seizes the m.o.p. Even stuff like reverse engineering binaries is nothing more than standard competitive capitalist praxis.
I think we have to ask our self is why so many capitalists still want to larp as a James Bond Villain that's building a secret base in a Volcano, when it comes to developing technology.