Free software and open source are two ideologies for the same thing. Free Software is the ideology of developing the software for the benefit of mankind (it's sometimes termed a "political" stance but I see it as an ethical stance). Open source is the ideology of saving money at a corporation by not paying the developers. Sure open source can benefit mankind but will only develop corporate software for money. When developing on my own time, I will focus on software that either personally benefits me or benefits other regular people.

▲

CharlesW 4 days ago | parent [-]

I applaud your choice! I just can't think of any free software examples that don't also benefit corporations.

▲

trueismywork 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

You need to think it in a different manner. When you have AGPL code, then it benefits mankind more than corporations. There's a Harvard report on value of open source to society based on how much money corporations put in.

Today linux is working nicely on desktops (even though it's not the year of linux) and is heavily dominated by corporations. The parts where linux doesn't do well are exactly parts without corporate support.

Software is becoming complex enough that it's not possible for a single company to just even maintain a compiler let alone an office suite. Its perfect ground for either one company having monopoly or an free software (not open source) being a base for masses.

	▲	kortilla 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		That’s not an example of open source that doesn’t benefit corporations. Linux is amazing for corporations.

▲

Wilder7977 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Lichess, the gazillion of self-hosting software. There are many examples of free software that are exclusively (or let's say predominantly) used in noncommercial environments.

In any case, I agree with the commenter, and I think that developing a software which is also used by companies is different from looking for vulnerabilities in the context and scope of a bug bounty program for a specific company. Yes, you could argue that users of said company are going to be more secure, but it's evidence t like even in this case the company is the direct beneficiary.