I'm fascinated that the Gates foundation convinced the Oxford vaccine developers to not go open-source with their vaccine. In an interview Bill said it was in order to maintain the quality of vaccines being distributed. So that any old company couldn't botch together a cut-price distribution scheme.

AstraZeneca are producing the vaccine on a non-profit basis, paid for by the Gates foundation.


While the reasoning seems logical, I can't help but think that there's an ideological component here.

Like it's worth spending countless dollars stop open source solutions being a thing.

I can't say I know enough about epidemiology to really have a fully informed opinion here. But I don't like this idea that ONLY big companies can save us and anyone or anything else will cause harm.

Show thread


I don't think Bill is being deliberately nefarious or cunning here. I think he's well meaning and just acting on his personal beliefs and ideology.

It's just that his actions happen to determine the health and lives of billions of people.

That in and of itself should be concerning.


@ChrisWere Open source here meaning...?


@ChrisWere indeed it should be, but turns out the overwhelming majority of bipeds on the planet doesn't care.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Linux Geeks doing what Linux Geeks do..