Mano, não sei se foi intencional ou não, mas aqui é uma instância internacional, meio que não vão interagir por não ser em inglês. Tem o !tecnologia@lemmy.eco.br que é de uma instância 100% BR.

Yeah, but there’s also the term “freeware”, which means closed source but free to use.

I’ll edit my comment for clarity, thanks for the heads up.

Projects leaching on the work of companies like that, “freeing the code”.

You mean it the other way, right? Because these companies you defend use the free labor of voluntary developers from the community, which spend hours and hours developing features, fixing bugs and what not, directly or indirectly. That’s how open source works.

When these companies change the project license to a closed source one, they’re basically saying a big “f*** you” to the community. Forking the latest open source version of the repository is nothing more than an effort to keep things the way they were.

huge companies will not pay a cent for Linux in the future

Linux is FOSS, you can do whatever you want with it as long as you redistribute it without modifying the license. Android does that; every GNU/Linux distribution does that. That’s how it works.

if a license says “you can use it for free, but need to share profits over x$”

What you’re describing is “freeware”, what this post is discussing is " open source software". There’s a giant gap between the two.

If the book title was “Kubernetes for Babies”, we’d probably get the same reaction