If its proprietary, then it can’t be distributed in an Open Source system anyway. We are free to use the Open Source version instead. I’m actually in favor of companies having the option to do what they want with the code, that is true Open Source in my opinion. In example a different distribution or even Microsoft takes the coreutils, and makes changes and then distributes it as proprietary software. We wouldn’t need to use it anyway.
Also which MIT Licensend software happened to this in our Linux eco system, that it became to a problem? Are there important examples?
Which also means Microsoft™ coreutils will always be “better” for general public. Yeah you are talking about open source, but this is more about Free Software ideology
Who says it will be better? It might also be worse. It might be bloated with functionality we don’t care, it might get telemetry. If its proprietary, we can’t trust it anymore. I don’t think this would be “better” just because Microsoft did something add proprietary features to it. Even the general public don’t think that Microsoft software is the best software.
Besides that, just because Microsoft does it better does not mean ours would get worse. It wouldn’t affect Linux at all.
For the same reason Windows is more popular, the proprietary ones will be more popular. Then comes Embrace, Extend and Extinguish. They add things that are only in their version. Apps uses it forcing reimplementation in original(open) version or breaking compatibility with it( I think thats how Google+ or something made XMPP kinda obsolete )
We might be onto different goals here. I want majority of people adopt Free software, rather than just me personally living with it only(which create more problems for me).
The thing about permissive licensing is that ptoprietary softwares get whatever they need from open source and whatever they do with it is unavailiable back to open source which is one way free labour for them
If its proprietary, then it can’t be distributed in an Open Source system anyway. We are free to use the Open Source version instead. I’m actually in favor of companies having the option to do what they want with the code, that is true Open Source in my opinion. In example a different distribution or even Microsoft takes the coreutils, and makes changes and then distributes it as proprietary software. We wouldn’t need to use it anyway.
Also which MIT Licensend software happened to this in our Linux eco system, that it became to a problem? Are there important examples?
Which also means Microsoft™ coreutils will always be “better” for general public. Yeah you are talking about open source, but this is more about Free Software ideology
Who says it will be better? It might also be worse. It might be bloated with functionality we don’t care, it might get telemetry. If its proprietary, we can’t trust it anymore. I don’t think this would be “better” just because Microsoft did something add proprietary features to it. Even the general public don’t think that Microsoft software is the best software.
Besides that, just because Microsoft does it better does not mean ours would get worse. It wouldn’t affect Linux at all.
For the same reason Windows is more popular, the proprietary ones will be more popular. Then comes Embrace, Extend and Extinguish. They add things that are only in their version. Apps uses it forcing reimplementation in original(open) version or breaking compatibility with it( I think thats how Google+ or something made XMPP kinda obsolete )
We might be onto different goals here. I want majority of people adopt Free software, rather than just me personally living with it only(which create more problems for me).
The thing about permissive licensing is that ptoprietary softwares get whatever they need from open source and whatever they do with it is unavailiable back to open source which is one way free labour for them