Linux

They can't corrupt Linux, atleast not the larger distros. RPM sponsors fedora development which IBM and other large organizations sponsor RPM. Why don't they corrupt RPM, because 1.) IBM specialize in cloud services and enterprise infrastructure, IBM has no need to deliver consumer grade products because they already make a shit ton of money. 2.) it would ultimately be fucking themselves over; IBM's cloud servers run on Linux, if fedora wanted to monetize the OS by adding trackers, they would ultimately be doing a disservice to their business by pissing off IBM. IBM's infrastructure is based on RPM to pull a shitty move like that would destroy it's sponsors and userbase.

Here are some things I think can help hold back co-option:

• As others have said, use copyleft licenses for your projects and consider licenses when choosing what to use or contribute to.
• Use distros/package repos that are community-run and have firm stances on what is and isn't free software. Don't use proprietary software if at all possible - always look for an alternative.
• Support open standards, open data and free culture projects like the fediverse, OpenStreetMap, Wikipedia, XMPP, etc. If companies can't control the device, they will try and control the way your device interacts with the world and/or vital services instead. The more freedom we have in adjacent areas, the less they can get their foot in the door.
• Support charities/volunteers who protect software freedom or adjacent causes, like the Software Freedom Conservancy, NLnet, your fedi admin, FSF, FSFE, EFF, etc.
• Support some community-run projects you use either by contributing time, or money if the developer(s) ask for it.

I really like everything about how linux related things work; how application repositories are full of nice things that fellow users have made because they wanted to and not necessarily to make money out of them. And the general wibe of being made for community by the community. And I want it to stay that way.

Finally, if anyone is interested in what you think about it, share this point of view with them! I think what's been created is really neat too and the more people who care about the values and freedom, instead of just its technical capabilities, the more chance we have. The only way the big companies can succeed in co-opting this movement is if they can sway enough people who don't care about the values.

This long post has one simple solution: the GPLv3.

It is very contentious, but our tech-broligarcy would've been greatly subdued if more folks used this license instead of other "permissive" (read. Doormat) licenses.

This has been considered by the Linux community literally since the day Linus first announced his kernel on Usenet. The primary defense is the GPL and related licenses which legally protect against that kind of abuse by forcing derived works to also be opened under the same license.

This is why, as much as I support the general idea of uutils, I’m deeply suspicious the it is under a MIT license instead of the GPL.

Maybe not "extinguish", but opensource - even GPLv3-d - is not immune to commercial exploitation, even abuse. Companies like Google/Alphabet, Ubuntu/Canonical and RedHat have decades of experience here.

Personally I would grade these use cases in the exact order I listed them, worst to OK. But there are many others.

I really like everything about how linux related things work; how application repositories are full of nice things that fellow users have made because they wanted to and not necessarily to make money out of them. And the general wibe of being made for community by the community. And I want it to stay that way.

I totally agree, and while that world also still exists, we have moved past that quite a while ago. But there are lots of smaller developers who want to make money with what they're doing. Done right, I don't see anything wrong with it, but it often is not done right.

Your question is somewhat confusing.

Most Linux distros have a policy against accepting nonfree software in their main repos. As long as that policy remains in place, what are you worried about? That Microsoft and Google will release things as free software? They are already doing that and that is a good thing.

And remember that free software doesn't have owners.

Maybe, but I doubt. The usage is SO tiny still, these corps likely don't give a shit.

People today mostly use smartphones over computers and most smartphones are already locked down and controlled by corps, they already won there.

The good news is, we are safe. Probably forever. The public is never going to be technically educated to use Linux, theyre getting dumber with tech every day.

Regulation. People will always adapt, but imo this is firmly a policy and governance issue.

its about heavy regulation and preventing regulatory capture... but corps have deep pockets and people are weak.

its always only a matter of time until people are voting against their own best interests.