This is where the supply chain metaphor — and it is just that, a metaphor — breaks down. If a microchip vendor enters an agreement and fails to uphold it, the vendor’s customers have recourse. If an open source maintainer leaves a project unmaintained for whatever reason, that’s not the maintainer’s fault, and the companies that relied on their work are the ones who get to solve their problems in the future. Using the term “supply chain” here dehumanizes the labor involved in developing and maintaining software as a hobby.

  • hfkldjbuq@beehaw.org
    42·
    2 years ago

    Free software is sufficiently different from anything that capitalism produces and requires use of its own metaphors to be understood correctly.

    Hm

    Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.

    —https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

    https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en#four-freedoms

    • pingveno@lemmy.ml
      4·
      2 years ago

      From what I understand, the GNU philosophy around selling dates from when distribution costs were substantial. Picture manufacturing and distributing CD’s full of packages. It’s just a totally different world now in terms of how software is distributed, free or otherwise.

      • hfkldjbuq@beehaw.org
        1·
        2 years ago

        It’s because rms needed money for remaining relatively independent from influence to implement the free operating system. Sending tapes for some bucks was just a means to that

        https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html

        it is not a different world. capitalism is still here, and it influences everything including developers ability to maintain their projects, with or without profit-driven influence.