It's much better to fund projects using a nonprofit foundation. There are plenty of examples of this. The problem with corporate muscle behind it s that development priorities end up being driven by the corporations doing the funding. In some cases, like the Linux kernel, there can be enough alignment so that it's not problematic. However, Chrome is an excellent example of how corporate backed open source goes horribly wrong.

[–] dingdongitsabear@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

doesn't have to be, it's enough it's not propped up by venture capital. all the results of enshittification are directly the result of venture capital wanting a 100x return on their investment.

a privately owned business that's not focused on 100x-ing someones investment but content with the profit their enterprise generates (think Steam) is inherently good to its customers.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Like I said your mileage may vary, also even a good business like Steam can turn bad over time. That's the fundamental problem with privately owned businesses. A lot of utterly deplorable companies today started out with the best intentions.

[–] csm10495@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That relies on donations which may or may not come. I understand in a perfect world that makes sense, but in the real world even those foundations often rely on corporate muscle. Without that enterprise money, I'm not sure how they'd stand.

[–] kabi@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago

Aren't you basically just describing FOSS and framing it as a complaint? Valve for example has a vested interest in improving their software stack, and they do just that by donating both money and engineers to various projects. If these open source projects did not exist, they would have to spend the same or even more money on a proprietary licensed alternative, or to develop their own solution.