My creds: Been in open source for 25 years, one of the earlier users of Ubuntu when it launched in Fourways, South Africa (remember those sleeved CDs they used to send for installation media) though I hardcore rep Debian, have deployed and supported countless tools across 3 continents, the most memorable being Mambo which later became Joomla, though I switched to Drupal.
I think the label has been hijacked by many corporations to front an ethical FOSS front but in reality release a hobbled version of their software that is inherently open source at the core, but, has a commercial hard gate around certain things, like scalability/performance/high availability, authentication and security (big yikes here), integrations, usability, reporting and analytics etc… you get where I am going with this. I respect that people have to do what they have to do to eat and grow, but there is blatant misrepresentation happening and it needs to be called out. Or maybe I am wrong here?
What does this even mean? You used free software made by others to your benefit or profit and that’s your “credentials”?
What in the actual fuck. How about you start a project without expecting anything and be the change you want to see?
No one else needs to run by your “label”, people who are knowledgeable know people need to earn to eat and have to make a livelihood.
No ones stopping you from using the base opensource code to extend it to your liking.
This is just open-source entitlelism. Nobody owes you shit.
Oh no, someone used open source software for their own purposes, free of any monetary obligations or restrictions! Wait, that’s the whole fucking point.
“supported”, dictionaries are pretty cheap you know…
though how exactly op has, i have no idea. they did not specify. :P