They already do. Not everything even in the server segment is unicorns and rainbows; a lot of corporate “fauxpen source” is SDKs for proprietary hosted services, and paid staff working on those “OSS” offerings is more about “building a vibrant community” (read: extracting free labor) and making sure the only contributions accepted are those that narrowly match their internal roadmaps (which reinforces my previous point).

I mean, it’s still better than closed source SDKs with bugs unfixed for years and books written about working around them, but that would be a pretty low bar anyway.

TIL:

> fauxpen source

> Etymology: a term invented by Phil Marsosudiro at a dinner party in North Carolina

> Date: 2 May 2009

> A description of software that claims to be open source, but lacks the full freedoms required by the Open Source Definition. http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

> synonyms: see open core, neo-proprietary

> antonyms: see Linux kernel, Apache, OpenNMS

https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/open-vs-fauxpen (2009)

Like Android?

Sorta, although to get to that point it had to lose 99% of what it needs to call it Linux.