'Open Source' became everything its fiercest critics worried it would eventually be

Wikipedia on entryism

Summary: The Open Source brand -- like the Open Source Initiative (OSI) -- stands for monopolies now, with few exceptions here and there; there's no compelling reason left to support "Open Source" anymore (focus on software freedom instead)

THE "OPENWASHING" thing isn't a growing trend; it's becoming the norm. As I look over Google News results (as RSS/XML only; this is the only Google service I still use!) I realise that there's nothing of value in it. Almost nothing. Maybe less than 10% of the whole. I see mentions of Microsoft, Google, Facebook... or projects that are GitHub-hosted, i.e. entrapped in a proprietary software cage. Lots of the results are pure marketing spam that's FUD from Microsoft proxies such as Black Duck, demonising Free software to push proprietary stuff. We know who amplifies that stuff and why...

What on Earth is this nonsense?!

"I'd rather write more articles than pick links about how Facebook is now "open", "Google will save us from COVID" and Microsoft "fights the bad guys..." (yes, that's the gist of it)."Why do I still spend about 6 hours a week following and keeping abreast of this nonsense?

It's tiring, both emotionally (exhausting!) and technically. I'd rather write more article than pick links about how Facebook is now "open", "Google will save us from COVID" and Microsoft "fights the bad guys..." (yes, that's the gist of it).

"And shame on you, OSI leadership (people from companies like IBM). You did this to yourselves..."Today, for the first time since 2004 or 2005, I've decided to just delete all the crap and never receive that again. Ever.

RIP, "Open Source".

And shame on you, OSI leadership (people from companies like IBM and Google). You did this to yourselves...

You're only 1 or 2 years behind the Linux Foundation when it comes to the sellout. No wonder your two co-founders are out this year, unwilling to associate with you anymore. And what next on your agenda? A "clearly defined" merger with InnerSource Commons (ISC)? Because "Open Source" is, after all, just (being) reduced to mere "collaboration" (sharing code snippets or components on GitHub)?

"Well, "Open Source" was never a genuine attempt at making Free software more widespread and popular; but at least there was that claim (from the likes of Bruce Perens)."A couple of years ago Simon Phipps repeatedly assured me nothing would change after he accepted Microsoft's money on behalf of the OSI, soon thereafter leaving the OSI in the hands of a Microsofter (in the Board); nowadays the OSI's official blog is routinely used to promote Microsoft job ads, proprietary GitHub and even worse things. And it's not limited to Microsoft. Look who nowadays speaks on behalf of OSI (in public events as recent as this year's). Look who those people work for.

Linux founder in the pool. Credit: Photo published by Thayvian, 17 January 2004 (linux.conf.au).

Well, "Open Source" was never a genuine attempt at making Free software more widespread and popular; but at least there was that claim (from the likes of Bruce Perens). If there was ever any sincerity, it's now all lost and/or hijacked. You threw out RMS along with his baby and the bathwater. You threw up in our collective faces. We vomit back at 'cha. ⬆

“My 25-year-old child, the Free Software Movement, occupies most of my life, leaving no room for more children...”

--Richard Stallman (around 2008)