Absolutely fair point and warning. In the end we all need to earn money somewhere in order to live. I think the real greyscale distinction is not between "corporate" vs "community", but on whether there's some actor that can act whimsically while remaining unchecked. I believe that the two terms are being used in an oversimplified way in that sense.
Thank you. So in theory the community-driven derivatives are always free, at least in theory, not to depend from the upstream corporation-driven ones. So it's more a matter of possible implications in the workflow, than in not being really community-driven.
Thank you for the clarification! – And for the extra info about snaps, which was something else I was wondering about too (I use Kubuntu at the moment)!
I agree with your point of view and its advantages. Of course it's also a matter of degree. One can imagine the situation where there's one "copy" of a community per server, or even per person; now this is absolutely unrealistic, but there's a continuity of cases from that unrealistic situation to the present situation. Somewhere along that continuum, fragmentation becomes more negative than positive.
I think it's just to avoid lawsuits. The list includes journals such as the Frontiers ones that I personally consider predatory, but others don't and would probably react even more if "potential" were omitted...
Great idea! Instance-generic link: !lego@lemmy.world