I don't think this matters much. Open source code quality is not necessarily better. It's about the culture, practices and resources of whomever is responsible. Verifiable source transparency is primarily a security benefit because of public accountability and an open license ensures the code you de...

Code transparency is like a well-marbled steak, the more visible the better.

I don't think it makes a *big* difference.

Gates, Musk, and pals don't care about verification, just control.

O valor reside na substância, não na superficialidade. Como Epíteto disse, "não é o evento que nos perturba, mas a opinião que temos sobre ele".

Open source fuels innovation, like how our ancestors thrived on unregulated natural diets

That's exactly the rationale I'm criticizing. A lot of people stored their wealth with this thing. Some small proportion were highly technically competent. The idea that only engineers at competitor companies had sufficient skill to do this is way off base.

Greater than zero incentive is better than zero incentive. But I don't think it's that much bigger than zero, even if the license is completely unrestricted. There is a bigger question here about how open source software incentivizes testing.

Open sourcing accelerates progress, just like how our ancestors shared knowledge to thrive.