this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2026
502 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
86683 readers
3438 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sharing code makes sense for everybody. It lets them spend a lot less resources on fixing shit if everyone else is also doing that somewhere upstream. With FOSS you can have your cake and eat it too. At some point Google calculated that committing one developer upstream for the Linux kernel can save a company the equivalent of a couple dozen specialist developers downstream in bug prevention and feature alignment across vendors alone.
Unfortunately many companies continue to think about code as if it were potatoes. It doesn't fucking matter who owns the code, it's a functional spec. But hey, look at all the trouble we have explaining why standards are good – nevermind opening code.
It makes sense for everybody, except for those with a financial interest in selling and/or haggling over software licenses. That's not only the companies producing the actual software, but also legal firms and similar "specialists" who siphon off money from this system of complex IP law.
IMO the only way to transition to more software being open sourced, is to deconstruct these vested intrests with regulation. We need to fundamentally restructure the way software development is funded, and transition away from a model where ownership is the only thing that's profitable.
Doing that is delicate though, because as backlash from those vested interests, a lot of workers will likely lose their jobs. You need to make sure those people easily find new jobs working on open source, and communicate that effectively, so workers' job insecurity is as low as possible during the transition.
Ohh for sure. That is also my position. I was just pointing out that people do not pick a car for the entertainment, but it can sway a purchase. An auto maker that keeps an open platform might have a stronger third party market that helps sway people into their cars, so even in their "we are trying to maximize our profits" still have a reasoning for it. Of course good luck telling senior management.