331–340 of 357 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While not a complete solution, the AGPL helps close this loophole.
No it doesn't. AGPL only requires the changes to be shared.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What law mandates that companies can't donate to someone on Patreon or help triage bugs or dedicate QA/security time to identifying issues? What law mandates that companies have to ignore maintainer burdens? Each company made an individual choice to use infrastructure that they weren't funding/supporting, to effectively transfer bug-testing and security reviews onto unpaid maintainers. Then the infrastructure they we…
The law that mandates that companies can't donate to someone on Patreon or help triage bugs or dedicate QA/security time to identifying issues is the requirement for CEO's to demonstrate good judgment in managing the company by maximizing profit for shareholders. The law that mandates that companies have to ignore maintainer burdens is similar, but much more obtuse, mainly concerning commercial and workplace agenda i…
Dows this law forbid them from paying support contracts to Oracle or IBM/Red Hat or anyone else? Hey, if nothing happens that needs support, that money could have gone to the shareholders, right?
And yet, I can't recall ever seeing any stories about shareholder revolts against management because they paid "unnecessary" support fees to software providers. You got any handy links to such stories?
If not, it seems it's your argument that is bogus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FOSS programmers owe you nothing, please read the license. You can keep dreaming otherwise and enjoy a steady stream of security problems from your leeching.
I hope you are answering the parent. Because rhis is exactly what I said. You as a user of any foreign library have to look through it. You can't trust code you didn't write. That is also one of the reasons why in the past so many parts where reinvented. Those guys where not stupid, but why on eaeth would you risk the security of your work just to not write the login process yourself? And then some smarty pants came…
It's not "Open Source" (making code public and free to use and modify) that's broken. It's how people rely on it without any consideration about the sourcing of it. It's not that it's free to pick and to use. It's that some/most people too often associate "it's free" to be equivalent to "I don't need to care about it, like, at all". It's that some/most people don't understand that, whatever they take, they become dep…
It absolutely is $0 free to pick and use. So that’s what people/companies will obviously do. Why should they pay more than $0 for something that is worth $0 in the market place?
What is? What's the "it" that "absolutely is $0 free to pick and use"?
A: The software, as-is (as-was) at the moment they downloaded it.
What does that "it" not include?
A: Any guarantee of support, bugfixes, maintenance or future development.
Those all cost extra, or one is free to go without.
That, as I seem to recall someone repeatedly pointing out here, is how the free market works. HTH!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The title of the article is "Open Source is broken" and its subtitle is "Why I Don't Write Useful Software Unless You Pay Me" And I disagree with both of these statements. Open source is not broken and I'll continue to write useful software, even if you don't pay me, because it's fun. The actual problem is concisely present in the article: > There is this culture of taking from open source without giving anything bac…
You hit the nail on the head.
Why pay for something that's being offered for free? I know that there are many good reasons to support valuable open source projects with money. But you can also _not_.
As long as you check what it is that is offered for free.
Doesn't this case pretty clearly illustrate that this doesn't include maintenance and support?
If corporations want that, they can buy it. As in, pay for it. With money.
Open source is not "broken" - it's working exactly as designed, where anybody can obtain the software for no cost, and compensation for work done is voluntary . If you want guaranteed compensation for your work, work for a company or require payment for your software. Releasing it as free software and then complaining when you don't get the donations you wanted is just being entitled.
What they didn't get was support and maintenance. Newsflash: That wasn't included in the deal.
They want that, they can pay for it.
whispers cryptooo~ Gitcoin could really help here.
Ordinary old-fashioned "fiat" coin would help at least as much.