> I wish Richard Stallman hadn't duped a generation into thinking that they have to use licenses that make Amazon richer instead of just using proprietary licenses to protect yourself, as the licenses were designed to do, so that people with more lawyers can't just steal your work.
This is why I like Open Source instead of Free Software. There's no practical difference between the two in terms of licences that are compatible with the two definitions. However, Free Software is an ideology that considers proprietary software to be immoral. Whereas Open Source is a perspective that only cares about the economics of producing software, and is perfectly compatible with capitalism.
Note, there are many scenarios for which I find Amazon getting rich off OSS work is perfectly OK, even advantageous for the contributors, since that kind of freedom and control is the whole point of OSS. It's just that being paid for your OSS contributions is probably not one of those scenarios, and people need to be aware of it, indeed.
This is why I like Open Source instead of Free Software. There's no practical difference between the two in terms of licences that are compatible with the two definitions. However, Free Software is an ideology that considers proprietary software to be immoral. Whereas Open Source is a perspective that only cares about the economics of producing software, and is perfectly compatible with capitalism.
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/
Note, there are many scenarios for which I find Amazon getting rich off OSS work is perfectly OK, even advantageous for the contributors, since that kind of freedom and control is the whole point of OSS. It's just that being paid for your OSS contributions is probably not one of those scenarios, and people need to be aware of it, indeed.