I immediately dislike calling it commerce for 3 reasons:
I think I will try saying “regulated capitalism” from now on and see if it works better.
Yeah, the terminology around this kinda sucks. I always have an issue with whether I should call it capitalism or not when I mean a heavily regulated version of it, including some social policies.
I just don’t know a better word for it and it is difficult to concisely express what I mean without saying capitalism and hoping people figure out what I mean from context.
Sorry if it is unclear, I am saying CGB Gray explains how corruption happens in leadership structures and why it is so difficult to prevent.
The opinion that this is why capitalism can work better than communism is entirely my own logical conclusion. I am not trying to claim CGP Gray said so.
Again sorry for the confusion.
CGP gray very specifically refers to democracies as well and explains how things like farm subsidies are used to buy votes. Maybe re-watch the videos.
And yes, CGP gray also indirectly explains why Marxists kept pumping resources into the government, police and bureaucracy. (Clarification: CGP Gray never mentions Marxists specifically, he just explains why leaders have to funnel resources to areas that help them stay in power.) It is inevitable in a system where you concentrate power in a limited group of people.
That is why distributing power between large number of independent capitalists and voters is the system that so far worked best, although still very far from perfect.
As long as humans behave like humans and are in charge, the utopian communism is as realistic as wizards in flying castles.
It is the opposite. In capitalism, there is at least a chance a good person has some power because power is distributed, not only held by governments. There are multiple examples in the main post. Even better examples are European countries where the government and businesses hold each other in check instead of govt being bought off legally like in the US.
In communism, the way power is distributed ensures corrupt people raise to the top. See an amazing video “rule for rulers” by CGP gray for a simplified explanation how that corruption works and why a good person can’t hold power.
In all leadership positions, period. Capitalist or communist. Democratic or autocratic. Does not matter, those that are not held back by their morals have an advantage.
I feel like CrowdStrike did some much groundbreakingly stupid shit that this term will be too ambiguous…
Your desperate reply is so predictable I added the quote where you use the specific word “argument” to my comment before you even posted your reply 🤣
So what is your argument?
The whole discussion is about how MIT-style licensing is not as effective for software freedom as GPL licenses.
There is no argument, dear child.
🤣
P.S: you are still talking about “other people”. Can you try to make any value judgement and own it? How about “I don’t care about software freedom and prefer to get free stuff”?
Why? Because your argument has failed beyond redemption so you need something else to impotently insult?
Which is completely besides the point of the post
🤡
The whole discussion is about how MIT-style licensing is not as effective for software freedom as GPL licenses.
No one else is arguing about that here you 🤡 That’s just your straw-man.
deleted by creator
I did not write 90% of the things you claim I did. Go make starw-man arguments somewhere else.
leadership thinks that it is a better
You seem to be having some comprehension issue, that is not what I wrote.
I disagree. Sure, for some larger crucial projects, companies would pay. But for the majority of (small) projects, we would just handwrite an inferior solution from scratch rather than handle the bureaucracy. The result would be wasted additional effort, inferior features and more bugs.
And even if that was not the case and bureaucracy was not an issue, the question is how much better would the paid for “professional” FOSS software be compared to the free one. If it was so much better, that it justified the price, it would outcompete the free one anyway. And if it is not, then by definition it is better we use the free one.
The “problem” is that those contributions can be taken and exploited by large corporations.
You say exploited, I say used. Or on the other hand, you can argue that large FOSS projects like Linux distros are exploiting smaller projects they package, since they don’t share their donations…
IMO there is no issue if the wishes of the author are respected. The authors wishing for companies to use their code is just as valid as wishing to restrict it to FOSS.
I did not write anything even in the neighborhood of that. Go learn how to read with understanding.
you are working for freedom.
Which is still working for free.
If you use MIT, you make products (paid or foss) better for everyone, in a sense making the world better.
If you use GPL, you push FOSS to be more prevalent, arguably making the world better in a different way.
What I don’t like is that the title minimizes the contributions of the MIT developers.
Great. No corporation is working on software for the freedom of its users
A lot of people don’t care.
Or pay the developer to dual license, which can and should be the preferred way for FOSS developers to fund their work?
Not everyone wants to deal with that (setting up payment methods, filling tax forms, …)
In addition, as a developer for a corp, I can tell you having to pay for a license would prevent me from using most smaller libraries because the process of getting it approved and paid is too difficult, even if the money is not an issue.
Netherlands? Switzerland? Norway?
Like sure, there always is some corruption but relatively insignificant amount.
Honestly, I can’t think of an EU country that is anywhere near the US levels of “corrupted by capitalism”.
What? Top? What do you mean?