He has no obligations to us as we did not pay him, but we also have the right to call out stuff we think is wrong as he didn't pay us

▲

gjsman-1000 8 hours ago | parent [-]

That's called a parasitic relationship. Think about it:

1. I have the right to take as I please

2. I have the right to criticize the giver as I please

3. The giver has zero right to take from me in any way

I think that's morally repugnant. If this is what open source means, I'm joining Microsoft and I will be the one writing the Halloween papers.

▲

sixhobbits 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think I'm saying the opposite on point 3. He has no _obligation_ to us and has full rights to 'take away' as he sees fit, but we still have the right to give our opinion about that process, and to make comparisons and contrasts with other similar products that are run differently

▲

embedding-shape 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you think somehow publishing FOSS means you get some right to decide how people use it, or anything besides the licensing of the code, you severely misunderstand what exactly FOSS is about.

▲

cwillu 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you don't like it, don't release software under that license.

	▲	gjsman-1000 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]