> Implying that software will somehow "not be made" without for-profit corporations employing programmers for peanuts is an old and tired argument, proven false by the very existence and triumph of the GNU system over most commercial systems.
I'm saying that certain classes of open source software won't be created, and you're building a straw man to pretend I'm saying that no open source software will be created. Your argument here seems disingenuous.
> I'm having trouble understanding this point of view. You have enough interest in this software to debate it, while not caring at all whether software continues to be made?
This question is implying that, if I do not consider an innovation a goal by itself - and therefore don't consider open-core "good", morally speaking - then I don't care whether software continues to be made. The phrase "continues to be made" is all-or-nothing - software can either continue to be made, or not continue to be made, i.e. disappear. So:
> I'm saying that certain classes of open source software won't be created
It is certainly not what you said, as per above explanation. Perhaps it's what you intended to say, in which case please feel free to express your thoughts more precisely, so we can continue from there.
I'm saying that certain classes of open source software won't be created, and you're building a straw man to pretend I'm saying that no open source software will be created. Your argument here seems disingenuous.