This kind of absolutism is crazy. People who are doing 90% of what we want them to do should be greatly celebrated and rewarded. Else we penalize idealistic people who are not perfect instead of penalizing the people who are actually doing the opposite of what we care about (ex. Autodesk).

Do you want software to become as closed source as mechanical engineering? No! So let's celebrate people building software that's open source, even if it's VC funded! They are awesome for doing that!

You're badly missing reality here. There's no "community governance" as there would be in a local farm shop or something. It's a bunch of online people with interests. They aren't going to visit you if you're sick or coach your kid's team or attend your funeral.

The two reasons actual communities work in actual locations are: 1) because to some extent the people all live in a place and want the place to be nice for them and their (grand)children, so they are invested personally and 2) companies aren't set up to help communities. Communities are the ones doing community things. It's crazy to demand other people do work in a certain way when you're doing nothing.

> the company doesn't care about community and only cares about profit.

There are plenty of examples of VC funded companies that care about community & don't "only care about profit". Bluesky is a good one (literally a community / social platform). That's such a black & white take it baffles me.

> Taking VC is an albatross that means a large portion of devs will never trust you or use your services

A "large portion of devs" (the majority) use so many VC funded services? Probably _most_ services devs use are VC funded. GitHub itself - was VC funded.

You can have an anti-VC opinion but you have to also live in reality.

O yeah cuz the non profit tactic worked so well for OpenAI.

OpenAI and Claude both took VC money and everyone on this message board uses them regardless of ~community~

Not all VCs are scum