241–250 of 464 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is really not that hard with the right licensing. Offer your FOSS project with the meanest anti-corporation license you can find (AGPL?) which is not going to bother your user base but it is going to be a major hurdle for any corporation and then offer the software with a corporate friendly license for 100.000 / year. Wouldn't this work?
You run into problems when there are contributors other than yourself.
> Now is the perfect time for Open Source maintainers to become legible to the big companies that depend on them—and that want to get more out of them—and send them five-to-six figure invoices. Well, this is exactly what I've been doing around VideoLAN (VLC, x264) and FFmpeg for the last few years. In order to do that, I've created 2 official companies Videolabs and FFlabs (besides the non-profit orgs) and I've gone…
> So, large SV companies and startup should also start agreeing to pay for open source, when it's the core of the tech. Companies usually have a reason to keep their expenses low. Sometimes they are a public company with fiscal responsibilities. A startup will only have so much runway and is likely trying to reduce expenses. Given this situation, why will they pay for what they can get for free?
No they don’t. That’s why they keep plowing billions into cloud infra and gazillion of saas products. They have an excuse when they think they can get it for free anyway like is the case with OSS but not an actual reason
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) Create a funding report newsletter for FFMPEG 2) When funding is low, big scary exclamation marks all over the place 3) Include a bulleted list of doomsday scenarios showing what could happen to YOU if a bug/vulnerability is found 4) Add a picture of a sad kitten or crying baby for good measure Now just subscribe all of the non-tech business people at organizations that use FFMPEG, and wait for them to panic. (Mak…
> Now just subscribe all of the non-tech business people at organizations that use FFMPEG ... Don't do that bit unless you're sure it's not illegal in your (and their) jurisdiction. Spam being a thing, and there being laws against it.
> By using this software, you agree to subscribe to our monthly newsletter
(I was joking btw, in case that wasn't clear)
> Now is the perfect time for Open Source maintainers to become legible to the big companies that depend on them—and that want to get more out of them—and send them five-to-six figure invoices. Well, this is exactly what I've been doing around VideoLAN (VLC, x264) and FFmpeg for the last few years. In order to do that, I've created 2 official companies Videolabs and FFlabs (besides the non-profit orgs) and I've gone…
No invoicing, no approvals, it runs, you get paid in fairly direct proportion to the actual run time. This might actually be a real use-case, not that I think about it (of course, then there will be a war to strip it out, violating the license, etc.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like you haven't quite got the concept of open source. If everybody consumes and nobody contributes, how long will that last? A while back I bought a cheap robot vacuum. Their scheduling feature didn't meet my needs, so I reverse-engineered the protocol and open-sourced a cron-friendly CLI tool and a library so people could do other things with it: https://github.com/wpietri/sucks Honestly, this was a mistak…
It seems like you haven't quite got the concept of open source. Making something open source is about granting freedoms for users of that thing. One of those freedoms is usually "you owe nothing and can do with it what you wish: sell it, fork it, modify it" in exchange for "the author provides no guarantees and is not liable for this software". Open source authors that expect some benefactor to appear and sprinkle mo…
This is demonstrably not how many people many treat open-source authors. Just look at how the Log4J folks are feeling right now: https://twitter.com/yazicivo/status/1469349956880408583
I do have some open-source code out there where people have been mostly pleasant and reasonable. It's targeted at developers in particular niches and they do act mostly as you describe.
But once it shifts from a peer relationship to a producer/consumer relationship, things can easily get ugly. Ugly in a way that drives people out of open source and keeps people from open-sourcing useful code. You appear to be fine with that. But if anybody's delusional here, it's the people who expect to keep taking from open-source software without worrying about its sustainability.
> Now is the perfect time for Open Source maintainers to become legible to the big companies that depend on them—and that want to get more out of them—and send them five-to-six figure invoices. Well, this is exactly what I've been doing around VideoLAN (VLC, x264) and FFmpeg for the last few years. In order to do that, I've created 2 official companies Videolabs and FFlabs (besides the non-profit orgs) and I've gone…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like you haven't quite got the concept of open source. If everybody consumes and nobody contributes, how long will that last? A while back I bought a cheap robot vacuum. Their scheduling feature didn't meet my needs, so I reverse-engineered the protocol and open-sourced a cron-friendly CLI tool and a library so people could do other things with it: https://github.com/wpietri/sucks Honestly, this was a mistak…
It seems like you haven't quite got the concept of open source. Making something open source is about granting freedoms for users of that thing. One of those freedoms is usually "you owe nothing and can do with it what you wish: sell it, fork it, modify it" in exchange for "the author provides no guarantees and is not liable for this software". Open source authors that expect some benefactor to appear and sprinkle mo…
I can't think of anyone I've ever met that started an open-source project expecting it to become their day job in short order.
When your project blows up and mints a herd of new gazillionaires, yes, it's reasonable to ask those companies to fund what is now an important community project.
Anybody that says "nope, their money, they do what they want" is spouting the same flavor of dipshittery as "free speech only means the government can't censor, private companies are free to do what they want".
Technically correct and functionally disastrous. Societies worth living in can and do not endure this behavior for long.
Americans used to understand this. Know why there are schools all over the country named after Andrew Carnegie? Because that ruthless capitalist mercenary, after crushing every one of his competitors to dust, invested a large chunk of his fortune on infrastructure for national wealth that would propel another three generations.
I'm an open source author and maintainer of a somewhat-popular python package[0] (~1M downloads/month) that I've maintained for over 10 years. I don't recall ever receiving a donation. I am still maintaining it, but I just don't have time to add the improvements that it needs to keep up with the ecosystem (asyncio, for example). If organizations who use it got together and chipped in some non-negligible amount, I wou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like you haven't quite got the concept of open source. Making something open source is about granting freedoms for users of that thing. One of those freedoms is usually "you owe nothing and can do with it what you wish: sell it, fork it, modify it" in exchange for "the author provides no guarantees and is not liable for this software". Open source authors that expect some benefactor to appear and sprinkle mo…
> "you owe nothing and can do with it what you wish: sell it, fork it, modify it" in exchange for "the author provides no guarantees and is not liable for this software". This is demonstrably not how many people many treat open-source authors. Just look at how the Log4J folks are feeling right now: https://twitter.com/yazicivo/status/1469349956880408583 I do have some open-source code out there where people have been…
> Log4j maintainers have been working sleeplessly on mitigation measures; fixes, docs, CVE, replies to inquiries, etc. Yet nothing is stopping people to bash us, for work we aren't paid for, for a feature we all dislike yet needed to keep due to backward compatibility concerns.
Why don't they 'resolve' the security issue by removing the feature and then set up a bug bounty for backporting fixes to the shitty feature? Then the companies that depend on it will actually be on the hook for once.
Too much collateral damage for downstream F/OSS? Too unseemly a move, in a moment of ‘crisis’?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO, I think the golden age of completely FOSS apps (no open core) is ending/has ended as users expect more features and apps struggle to meet demands without effective monetization. I think open source will always have a place for libraries and tools, but end user applications will either become open core or no longer open source.
> I think open source will always have a place for libraries and tools, but end user applications will either become open core or no longer open source. Very sad if this ever comes to pass. It's a world in which I would never have learned about computers or decided to work with them. I think it makes more sense to charge big companies but keep software free and libre for individuals. (I don't think this future will h…
I agree, but how do you distinguish between the two, and how do you make the source available yet compel large companies to pay?