This isn’t true, a lot of corporations use and benefit from the foss and they should be supporting those projects.
They should also be supporting projects that could replace the applications that they spend millions on each year. When your CIO says that they are using ‘whatever corpo system’ because a viable open source project doesn’t exist, they should start funding the non-viable projects so they can become viable.
As long as the end user is abiding by the licensing terms it shouldn’t be an expectation that any additional support is coming from anywhere. This is the nature of foss. The contributors should know this.
A corporation has no obligations towards foss projects, no different to any individual being made to fund them.
This isn’t true, a lot of corporations use and benefit from the foss and they should be supporting those projects.
They should also be supporting projects that could replace the applications that they spend millions on each year. When your CIO says that they are using ‘whatever corpo system’ because a viable open source project doesn’t exist, they should start funding the non-viable projects so they can become viable.
Worse they often report issues that affect them but still don’t commit resources to resolving those issues.
As long as the end user is abiding by the licensing terms it shouldn’t be an expectation that any additional support is coming from anywhere. This is the nature of foss. The contributors should know this.
Licensing terms only govern the legal aspects, not social and moral aspects.
Of course, but as we know there is no universal agreements for either. The expectations are ill placed.
Then use a noncommercial licence.