On the map

At the centre Free software is meant to be exploited commercially, and the licence’s terms are the whole of what a company owes in return. Holds DDDrew DeVault Read this korrent →

• Similar wording Charging large companies for a licence sends them back through procurement, so they drift to a worse free alternative rather than pay. Holds TDThomas Depierre
• Similar wording Free riding is not open source’s problem: the users who only download the code impose no cost on anyone. Holds NANadia Asparouhova
• Similar wording Permissive licences are the better way to release free software and free content, because they maximise adoption. No longer holds VBVitalik Buterin
• Similar wording Open source won because it let companies bypass procurement, legal review and contracts, not because it was free of charge. Holds TDThomas Depierre
• Similar wording The same absence of contracts and lawyers that let companies adopt open source freely is what let experts publish it, and raising the bar would break both. Holds TDThomas Depierre
• Similar wording The warranty disclaimer in a free licence is the real deal being struck: the entire risk of using the code falls on whoever uses it. Holds TDThomas Depierre
• Similar wording A freemium product's free tier should sample everything the paid product can do, because a limited free experience teaches users the product is limited. Holds ACAlbert Cheng
• Similar wording A licence is only the floor of open source; what keeps a project alive is an ethos of contribution that no licence can compel. Holds MMMatt Mullenweg