I agree with your words, but I'm not sure we mean the same thing. To be clear, corporate America didn't get hung up on the free as in "beer" part. It got up on the philosophical implications of free as in "speech". No more lock-ins, no more EULA that can restrict use of the software you paid for, no more "you're going tonuse what we decide is beat for you and you're going to like it", no more forced upgrades to versions that bring barely anything to the table besides new licensing costs and new bugs etc.

Nope. That was just by accident.

If it had been to mean hat it said on the tin, there wouldn't have been any necessity to introduce the term in the first place, as Free Software haf already been around fpr 15-ish years at that point.

I was around and... uhm... awakened, for lack of a better term, when ESR and the like introduced "OpenSource" to produce more corporate appeal.

There was 0 reason to do that solely to describe GPL'ed software, and every reason to avoid philosophical concepts like "freedom" when talking corporate-y, specifically because, back then as today, it was implicitly understood and accepted that "freedom" makes for bad business.

It means what it always has. It never meant the same as "free software", not now, not 25 years ago. It always meant " as much of 'free' as we need to in order to make corporate software development cheaper, while keeping as many options open as was can to close it up and charge for access down the line".

It just wasn't always this obvious (to some).

Well, apparently it's rich now, so you figure... :-D

So... does this mean that if "shit happens" while you're in possession of a rental van you're off scott free, not responsible?

Or that if "shit happens" after you've signed the rental contract and paid, but before pickup, it's tough titties "no van and no money for you"?

Did you ever rent a van?

You put your monkey in a bank, and the bank gets robbed - shit happens, your money is gone?

Have you ever been to a bank?

No, "shit" doesn't 'happen" when you earn money making yourself responsible for 150.000 people being able to drive their car. You either uphold your part of the deal or you're responsible for damages. Everything else is an invitation for abuse.

I say take the cash and open a new company under different management and build more offshore wind turbines, now that you have a billion.

This isn't the point.

The point is that a fwir justice system should deliver the punishment exactly as established, not give off "I altered the deal, pray I don't alter it any further".

The original deal was: you don't drink, you get to drive your car. Not "maybe", not "if nothing comes im between."

If you think that's too soft on crime, we can also discuss "you never get to drive a car again".

In any case stick to the f-ing deal. Being a criminal doesn't make you vogelfrei.

you know, living is harmful to your life, every day is getting you closer to death. Eating many foods is harmful, drinking many things, breathing the air in many parts of the world and during different weather conditions. Having sex may be harmful, it can degrade your quality of life in the long term.

There are millions of harmful things, you will die and everyone else as well. I am not proposing for everyone to do everything, I am saying - if you enjoy it, don't allow people to dictate to you, do it.

you do understand we live only once, what's wrong with porn, gambling and drugs? Enjoy it if you want it.

is that a serious comment?

ever heard of team drivers? they exist to avoid sitting idle for half a day due to regulations.

We build many professional Android and iOS apps for the trucking, logistics, shipping and related industries. It is a complete disaster, what Android app store has become over the 11 years we have been dealing with them. Things are only getting worse, more complicated, longer, more expensive. I don't know what they have achieved with this but they haven't made it safer.

My partner is a price machine.
They can tell you exactly what the prices are for regularly purchased goods at every single store we frequent.
I can point to avocados and ask if thatâ(TM)s a good price or not, and they can tell me the prices of every other place they have been to.

It appears Walmart is beginning to mess with this. But if the prices go up and fluctuate then we will simply stop shopping there. We will, in fact, start going to the small discount grocery places which have sprung up in the area. The avocados might be going bad soon, but when they are half the price of the other stores in the area, itâ(TM)s absolutely worth it.

  Iâ(TM)m not saying most people will do this. Most people just want convenience. We think about the time and gas cost to procure specific goods, and do a quick optimization based on that. If Walmart starts messing with our ability to get a reasonable price, we simply wonâ(TM)t shop there anymore, and they will have lost a customer.
Other people can just blindly walk into this, and Iâ(TM)m sure they will. At this point in American economics other people can go get effed sideways⦠it means more opportunities for those who pay attention to whatâ(TM)s going on. Canâ(TM)t pay attention and have a little critical thinking? Well, I guess thatâ(TM)s your problem.

Droves of peole telling you how this isn't worse than the alternative in 3... 2... 1...

True, but (the possibility of) accountability isn't necessarily always only tied to regulation. Sometimes it's intrinsic.

Some times you can regulate it away, but it still.lingers (e.g. soldier following cruel.orders), and all you have to do to hold.on to it is to ignore regulation that says otherwise.

Other times it's intrinsic, and it follows laws of nature (my previous example), and holdong on to it creates a Kafkaesque dituation only.