31–40 of 284 posts
Working with different code bases is also great practice and one always learn something new.
The reasons you write open-source code: - training purposes to better yourself - as a showcase or to build up your reputation to get hired - because you have a niche need in your personal life that no one else already solved None of those reasons are invalidated by big corporations using open-source without paying back.
I'd like to include my reasons: - It's a lot of fun - It's addictive Honestly I was a bit struck when a friend looked at my github and said it was a nice portfolio. The material view never hit me at all: my github is a product purely of what I've wasted/spent time on for fun, not to make a profile. :)
You practice your favourite instrument and post it on the tube. Worth it.
You get to know people with similar style and taste so you jam together. Worth it.
You guys stream the sessions on Twitch and got fans. Release EPs on bandcamp. But it starts to take too much personal time away from you. Worth it?
But the fans want it! You'll have to decide. Sometimes you work for months on an album. People cheer on the live stream, but not a lot of income from selling the art. Worth it?
Pick your RUNLEVEL. :)
> I have written licenses to make GitHub hesitate before using my code as input to Copilot Microsoft has claimed that consuming code for Copilot is fair use, and therefore does not require permission from the copyright owner, so how would a license—an offer of permission under limited terms—impact that at all? > But even if I solidify the licenses, what stops GitHub from ignoring them by claiming that their Terms of…
Yeah, the license does not matter because if the fair use argument does not hold then Copilot would violate even very permissive licenses like MIT since Copilot does not do attribution.
The FOSS that was imagined by Stallman, where end-users could actually use FOSS products in their everyday lives, is not possible under capitalism. So what you have instead is effectively a network of semi-public property primarily for industry use. But, just as anything else that industry cannot turn for a profit, FOSS is and will always be in the lowest of priorities, if a priority at all. Cheers to Stallman, but a…
> The FOSS that was imagined by Stallman, where end-users could actually use FOSS products in their everyday lives, is not possible under capitalism I have to disagree. Use a Linux based operating system, self-host your internet services at home, use google free android, or do a subset of that. Its all open source and works locally.
The FOSS that was imagined by Stallman, where end-users could actually use FOSS products in their everyday lives, is not possible under capitalism. So what you have instead is effectively a network of semi-public property primarily for industry use. But, just as anything else that industry cannot turn for a profit, FOSS is and will always be in the lowest of priorities, if a priority at all. Cheers to Stallman, but a…
> The FOSS that was imagined by Stallman, where end-users could actually use FOSS products in their everyday lives, is not possible under capitalism I have to disagree. Use a Linux based operating system, self-host your internet services at home, use google free android, or do a subset of that. Its all open source and works locally.
For average end-users, “use a linux based operating system” alone comprises a mountain of barriers, but most are rarely even approached because they’re preempted by lack of reliable hardware support and lack of support for staple applications like Word, Excel, and Photoshop.