Skip to main content


As free money dries up and profits slow, companies slash headcount almost as fast as #opensource community trust.

My thoughts on IBM's HashiCorp buyout: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNcBk6cwim8

in reply to Jeff Geerling

All to insure that the c-suite doesn’t suffer. In the end, even shareholders are sacrificed to guarantee executives are well paid no matter what. Or, in the case of Elon Musk, how badly Tesla tanks and how terrible the acquisition of Twitter has been.
in reply to Jeff Geerling

It's so rare to see the difference between #FreeSoftware and #OpenSource explained in "mainstream" technical media.

Thanks for bringing attention to that.

in reply to R. L. Dane :debian: :openbsd:

@RL_Dane I agree, but we should never promote Open Source. It's a harmful movement of proprietary shills. We should use the term Free Software instead.

Also it's a shame he says it's ok to make proprietary software if you want to make money. It's possible to make money in ethical ways and the FSF even encourages people to sell Libre Software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

in reply to libreuser

@libreuser @RL_Dane I don't really promote proprietary software, it's more of a statement that if you don't care about free / open source software, don't put up a facade (to companies that do the rugpull). Just be honest and say you don't wish the participate in those movements at all instead of leading people on.
in reply to Jeff Geerling

@RL_Dane We need to make people realise that software freedom is a basic right that we deserve and that it's unethical for anyone to take it away from us. The Open Source movement doesn't say that proprietary software is wrong, so most people are still unaware of this. That's why companies love using that term so much. It allows them to contribute and show how good they are, but at the same time they continue to make proprietary software and abuse their users. You've mentioned some of this in your video, so thank you for that.

Companies switching to proprietary licenses is a bad thing that we should criticise, but they still made a valuable contribution to free software and I don't think that it would have been better if they never made those contributions.

in reply to Jeff Geerling

Thank you for this video and saying what needs to be said.
in reply to Jeff Geerling

Great video. Thanks for making it. I think this is now painful, but will be good in the end, as it creates clarity...

"Corporate Controlled Open Source" is certainly a thing, such projects are usually happy to throw out/reject everything that is "in their way", or perceived as a maintenance burden. Including support for niche OS/CPU architectures, and even use cases, and heavily gatekeeping contributions, while they talk being "free and open".

They finally show their true colors.

in reply to Jeff Geerling

Great take! I was unaware that Redis had changed their license and very quickly swapped it out with Valkey in an app stack I’m building for work. I had already decided to build on Debian for all these reasons… it’s getting tough to navigate.
in reply to Jeff Geerling

I just wanted to say that the size of your browser and text when you do these segments is spot on 👌 It's a difficult thing to pull off since everyone has different screen sizes and densities. Thank you. 🙏
in reply to Luke Nelson

@luc122c heh, hard to get right but I've settled on capturing a 720p-sized window for that, and it works for legibility... usually!
in reply to Jeff Geerling

I think I mostly concur, though long ago I had to dig up NNTP archives to show ioerror that terms "open source" and "free software" were in use long before the FSF and such attempted to demand that such phrases refer to things with such specificity.

I don't feel like redoing that work (in large part because DejaNews' Usenet archives were made functionally useless by Alphabet Inc./Google the last time I took a gander at it).

Having written as much, it was at least my personal experience, that the Vagrant so-called "community" were full of horrible people long before IBM was offering over a billion dollar buy out to HashiCorp, e.g. this makes passing reference to an experience I had with them many years ago (circa 2012 maybe?): https://rap.social/@teajaygrey/112311582854377285

in reply to Jeff Geerling

Free Software is increasingly meaning monetizing a community's free labor
in reply to Jeff Geerling

Almost sounded like "the OpenBSD license", only to realize it was "the open BSD license" :flan_laugh:
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Jeff Geerling

Agree with everything you said there Jeff 👍🏻

I'd not really given much thought to the difference between Free Software and Open Source before today and just treated them as if they were synonymous. I'll pay more attention in future.

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Jeff Geerling

Great video. For fun how you pronounced Suse. https://youtu.be/nLdexZlVkAY?si=fxcVl5_ryU6EdL3A
in reply to Jeff Geerling

it’s not that corporate open source is dead, but rather the cloud providers have killed server corporate open source.

Corporate open source continues and thrives elsewhere like programming languages and desktop (Windows Terminal, Visual Studio Code, etc)

in reply to Jeff Geerling

LB (parent): I somehow never ran across this person before today, and I instantly started mainlining his videos. I've found it uncommon to see videos that are simultaneously unpretentious, technically solid, and excited about free software without being dogmatic. I'm so happy to find one more!

Anyway, that video is a clear, friendly, and nondogmatic explanation of how tech corporations are using bad faith license agreements to seem "open" but ultimately abuse dev goodwill. Short and very sweet!