[nixos]

> The point isn't to prevent people from customizing their use of the software. The point is to create a system where developers get paid and projects are financially sustainable, instead of being abandoned or barely maintained.

The problem is that's actually one of the main powers of Open Source - the ability to fork it past the desires of upstream.

For example, I use Windows, which is "supported source". OK. Microsoft decides to put spyware. Now I need to rip it out. OK. Did so.

Now, one day later, Windows gets updated.

I have to go through the code again.

If it would be "Open Source", I'd just fork it. But now, I can't even share modifications (is it a derivative work?).Now every user would have to go through the code, find the privacy violations, and re-compile it.

Also, what happens Microsoft get's fed up and fully closes source (no more updates to "Supported Source", and they drop out of the program)? Each user has to keep up his version of Windows?

Not too useful.

If you think about it, how are there commercial communities around Apache/MIT/BSD?

Because no one wants to upkeep his fork, so they contribute code back so others can help maintain it.

That freedom can only be maintained by the ability to fork.