Unless you kidnap each one of their kids, I doubt they will ever do. And they have all the right to keep it closed. The solution is to support the open source alternatives until they become so good we will never need proprietary software anymore. And I think this will happen way sooner that we think
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2022
2 points (100.0% liked)
Open Source
30339 readers
2705 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Nothing really, unless you changed laws around copyright so drastically that closed source isn't financially sustainable. Which isnt possible.
You vote with your dollars, and if you care what Apple is doing, you tell them.
Buy a non-Apple system, write to Apple, and let them know why you're not longer purchasing Apple equipment.
It's really simple, if you want companies to change, you stop giving them money (and you tell them why if you're no longer doing so). Giving them money tells them they're doing everything just right.
this. and say goodbye to Apple, they will never do it
I don't think that'll happen anytime soon.
Way much better to continue building linux mobile based os.
Bit of a tangent here, but I think FOSS ideologues have a tendency to overrate the significance of software being FOSS.
We already have a Linux-based mobile OS: Android. It is open source, but it is still in practice a tool for Google to gain more control over us.
Having open source code is necessary, but not sufficient for software freedom. We also need the software to actually be designed to serve the user.
That's why Android isn't FOSS, it lacks the free part
The term "free software" as used in FOSS doesn't mean software that promotes freedom, but software whose licenses allow certain freedoms. In this definition, Android is free software and FOSS.
I understood that wrong then
Android Open Source Project (AOSP) is FOSS, but it is not copyleft - almost everything in AOSP (aside from the Linux kernel, which is copyleft under GPLv2) is licensed under "permissive" FOSS licenses which allow anyone to take it, change it, and distribute non-free derivatives.
The Android that comes on a phone you buy in the store is (with very few exceptions) largely not FOSS - it is a bunch of closed source proprietary bits running on top of something derived from AOSP. On some phones it is relatively easy to replace the Android it came with with a version that is mostly FOSS, but on many phones it is not.
In theory, the fact that Android distributors are required to make their changes to the kernel itself available (because it is copyleft) should make it easier for people to make FOSS operating systems (Android or otherwise) for these phones, but, for a variety of reasons, in practice it often doesn't work out that way.
I think would be easier to start using Linux and open source stuff, they will need to move to open source if they lose clients and money with closed source, that's how capitalism works.
perhaps extortion? 😄