This is what happens when someone understands there is a problem but has fundamentally missed the fact that everyone else has already solved it. Non-commercial licenses or business source and commons clause have fixed the problem with open source.
It depends what your goals are. If you're a multibillion dollar tech company trying to capitalize on free labor while building closed source surveillance empires, sure, BSL, SSPL, and the like are definitely a problem.
They fix open source for everyone else.
It is honestly super weird that a largely anticapitalist movement is so militantly opposed to noncommercial licenses and so committed to ensuring Amazon can screw everyone over for free.
I think you got that backwards. It's the multibillion dollar tech companies that want the fauxpen source licenses, even though they're bad for freedom for the rest of us.
How does Amazon, Google, and Microsoft come out as the little guys being bullied by... Mongo and Elastic in your worldview?
And who is generating the open source code in your world compared to who is getting paid for it?
It just doesn't make any sense unless one is principally funded by big tech companies... like the OSI is.
(Intriguingly, the corporate sponsor link is basically impossible to reach through navigating their site now, but here's who the OSI works for: https://opensource.org/sponsors/ Nice group of little guys.)
Considering the FSF refuses to remove a voting board member who has repeatedly and zealously spoken up on behalf of pedophilia and in defense of pedophiles, I think we can also dismiss them as having any sort of rational or defensible moral or ethical position. (I highly recommend https://drewdevault.com/2023/11/25/2023-11-26-RMS-on-sex.htm... as required reading for anyone who has any commentary on the FSF.)
Don't we, as a community of developers trying to make the world a better place and build software with lasting impact for humanity deserve better representation? Shouldn't we ask if the positions of these two extremely problematic organizations is really the path we should invest in?
Like, I contribute to and support open source projects, and I release my own code currently under permissive licenses, generally. But when the core freedom is "able to be used for surveillance capitalism that pays for billionaires to build bunker mansions to survive the apocalypse they're creating", while we villainize the companies actually developing the code who try to open source their code and still let their developers eat, we have a set of "freedoms" that are actually chaining us all to our doom.
> I release my own code currently under permissive licenses
> the core freedom is "able to be used for surveillance capitalism that pays for billionaires to build bunker mansions to survive the apocalypse they're creating"
If you released your code under AGPLv3+ instead of permissive licenses, then your code wouldn't be usable in most/all such applications.
next step is open source and libre software should only help libre software. we need to put an end to those corporations using libre/open source code to make money, never contribute back nor money nor code. internet, and most servers now run linux or derivatives of it. we have enough critical mass to destroy the closed-source corporations by removing them the right to make any money with any libre/open source code within their products. F them.
The submitted URL pretty much just copies that.