FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

Post by saagarjha » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 2:18 PM UTC

progval wrote: post #207

mr__y wrote: post #206

Is there any copyright/licence specialist here? I've come up with an idea of having a free open software library that randomly displays offensive[0] messages full screen that comes with a BSD type licence with a clause that forbids removing/disabling that message. I assume that many developers or end-users[1] at home are perfectly fine with a messagebox popping up once a month with a "f## off" message, while any corp…

> with a clause that forbids removing/disabling that message This sounds similar to the "invariant sections" clause of the GNU Free Documentation License; except you're talking about software instead of documentation. > I assume that many developers or end-users[1] at home are perfectly fine with a messagebox popping up once a month with a "f## off" message Some people are really angry about GNU Parallel's citation "…

Post by thosakwe » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

Post by djsumdog » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 2:25 PM UTC

simias wrote: post #238

tssva wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two possible scenarios: The developer always thought that contributing back code or financial support should be a requirement of use but failed to reflect this in the license chosen and now is correcting this. The developer over time has changed their believe of what the requirements for use should or need to be. This change of thought may have been informed by the behavior of those using the code but is st…

In my system of value (which is of course subjective and you may not share) I do consider that these open source projects suffer a sort of tragedy of the commons where some companies benefit immensely from them (think how expensive it would be to build and maintain something like osxfuse from scratch) but don't contribute anything back to it. It's like big corporations managing to pay little to no taxes in the countr…

Post by DagAgren » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 2:26 PM UTC

__d wrote: post #195

DagAgren wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure the argument "FOSS has done fine so far" is that convincing when you then lay out many of the places where FOSS has been failing miserably.

Not to forget the many, many places where it has and is succeeding happily. Here's my "get off my lawn" perspective: those developers who remember a world where there was little or no free software (from, say, the mid-1980's, when Sun made the C compiler a for-cost option on SunOS through until commercial Linux distributions), have a visceral understanding of free software that those who came to it later, and (perhap…

Post by toadkicker » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 2:30 PM UTC

earonesty wrote: post #262

marcus_holmes wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a startup tech founder, benefiting massively from FOSS code. I realise there is a debt here, and the plan is definitely to repay that debt once we're cash-positive. Being able to have that plan, and not having to pay for software licences up front, is awesome. But I totally understand TFA's point of view. Maintaining a FOSS library is hard work, and those benefiting from it should contribute. If he's not seeing t…

"Small companies don't have the resources"... that's some backward thinking right there. By failing to contribute, small companies cost themselves money very quickly. How can a small business afford to live in a world of un-maintainable forks, patches and tech debt? Only large companies can afford to maintain private forks of FOSS. Small companies have to give back, or they will simply disappear.