Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is It Even Worth Working on FOSS Anymore?

gavinhoward.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 284 posts

Re: Is It Even Worth Working on FOSS Anymore?

#171

Post by beebeepka »

southerntofu wrote: post #154
cobertos wrote: post #73

Only certain FOSS is worth working on for me. Here's my heuristic as of today. * Don't work on FOSS that supports a SaaS or proprietary product. You're enriching someone else's ecosystem for no money. You take on the communication bandwidth and issue load of dealing with not only your issues but their issues too. Your software is useless if theirs fails. It's thankless. * Don't work on FOSS you aren't using yourself…

> Don't work on FOSS that supports a SaaS or proprietary product. So true. I'd expand on that with a more specific example: game modders. When i look at all the energy spent on game mods which bring significant (gratis) value to commercial games, i can't help but wonder what the FOSS gamedev ecosystem would look like if all those dedicated people put their energy on free-software ecosystem. Minecraft for example made…

Please don't do this.

The premise sounds good but some of the best things in gaming were conceived as mods. Team fortress was a Quake mod. Now, I personally don't blike moba games but Dota also started as a mod. Not to mention Quake OSP/CPMA/Defrag, UTComp, HLDM, Black Mesa and countless others.

Re: Is It Even Worth Working on FOSS Anymore?

#172

Post by fxtentacle »

h2odragon wrote: post #160
danuker wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> got me booted from several platforms This bothers me. Can I get some more detail and drama? > Today, I don't have a place for that kind of thing If you want to share your work with close friends, you could use say, self-hosted Gitea or GitLab.

> more detail and drama? I'm really not certain myself wtf happened. Maybe I just fell victim to my own paranoia. Maybe quoting MLK and supporting an Amish school really are that controversial. Maybe it was the "naked lizards" video game mod. Since i mentioned it that way, I'll also mention that I've been tempted to resurrect a site for some reason or none simply because up until last year, I had had some online pres…

I think I know what you mean.

I was honestly surprised that someone got offended enough to figure out my email and send me insults just because I was lazy and kept the git branches for my network library named "master" and "slave". Plus the main server supports various blacklist command line parameters for IPs, login handles, and ports.

Now the entire project is off Github and on a private Gitea.

Re: Is It Even Worth Working on FOSS Anymore?

#173

Post by tkot »

Invictus0 wrote: post #38
IceWreck wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Simply get an FTP account, mount it locally with curlftpfs, and then use SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem.

Is CurlFtpFS still developed? Last time I considered using it it looked abandoned and there was some regression from years ago which supposedly made it really slow. I think rclone offers pretty much the same functionality and more?

Re: Is It Even Worth Working on FOSS Anymore?

#174

Post by mathteddybear »

southerntofu wrote: post #166
js8 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with the broader point, I don't think Minecraft example is accurate. Historically, most MC mods were freeware closed-source, only few years back (around 1.10) lot of them became open-sourced. So I don't think open source was a big consideration for modders.

You are correct. I meant that Mojang was saying they would consider open sourcing Minecraft itself when it's ready and has raised sufficient funding (have we reached this point yet?). My point was that modders are providing significant value for free to private companies (and are happy to do that as lon as they're credited) and i wish such energy was directed towards a FOSS game ecosystem instead of continuing to enr…

I believe the phrase was "Once sales start dying" though

Anyways, while there are some similarities shared between Open Source and video game modding scenes, they are substantially different. Instead of evidence to back up this claim, I implore you to imagine what it would be like if some wrote an article titled "Is It Even Worth Working on Videogame Mods Anymore?".

Re: Is It Even Worth Working on FOSS Anymore?

#175

Post by adament »

sam_goody wrote: post #150
adament wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the GP wrote: “For many, such a license should be required for use in any org which is over X employees” emphasis mine. If this requirement comes from a clause in the license then it violates the open source definition https://opensource.org/osd because it imposes a restriction on the use of the software.

IANL, and am always willing to learn. What clause does this violate exactly? I would guess that you mean one of the following, but I do not see any violation: > 8. "not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution." > 9. "restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. " > 6. "restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for ge…

Let us first agree on what we are arguing. You proposed that:

> For most software projects, there should be a way to buy a commercial support license.

> For many, such a license should be required for use in any org which is over X employees.

I interpret this to mean that: You impose in the license of the software that if you are an organization over X employees, you are not entitled to use and distribute the software under that license instead you must hold the commercial license or you must in addition to the normal license hold the commercial support license.

In the first case(where the normal license grant does not apply to sufficiently sized orgs) I believe you impose a restriction of use on the software in a specific field of endeavor in contradiction with section 6. in the OSD.

In my view it is clear that if you require an additional commercial support license for some users but not everybody you violate section 7. as the rights to the program is restricted for some parties (orgs with over X employees only has those rights if they also acquire a commercial support license):

“7. Distribution of License

The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.“

Now it might very well be that you had another mechanism in mind for imposing your requirement of “Orgs over X employees must hold a commercial support license”. In that case it might very well be a different mechanism in the definition that conflicts with your mechanism, but I cannot see how you can achieve your aim of imposing a requirement on usage of the software for some users without contradicting the spirit of the open source definition which says that you must grant the same rights to all users of your software.

I cannot find in your link [2] what you mean by the phrase: “In practice, there are many "Open Source" licenses that allow paid licensing [2]”. Usually when people speak of paid support licensing for open source (or free software) that is an OPTIONAL support license or a separate commercial license(see the QT license options) that you acquire the software under, and it does not conflict with either free software or open source software. My opposition is only your stipulation that the commercial license be required for some users of the software, and it is this requirement part that I claim conflicts with the Open Source Definition. Note that it is perfectly valid to charge people to obtain your open source software from you, but you are not allowed to impose restrictions on their ability to redistribute that software (including source) to others for free, hence this is probably not the solution you are looking for?

Re: Is It Even Worth Working on FOSS Anymore?

#176

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

jefftk wrote: post #159
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, you could do every bit of work as if it were for a vital infrastructure project. That’s what I do. Even my “farting around” projects have a lot of polish. I write everything I do as if it will ship. I find it establishes great work habits and personal integrity, and my GH ids (I have a personal one, and a couple of org ones) make outstanding portfolios[0]. Not to worry, though. My experience, is that potential em…

It really depends what your goals are. I often have a problem I want to solve in my personal life, and not very much time. (Ex: code that makes the figures for a blog post.) So I write quickly, doing the minimum to get it done. I would never do that in a work context, because the environment there is so different, but it's often the right trade-off for things I'm doing for fun. (And I still make all the code open sou…

Absolutely. I don't make any value judgements at all. I am quite aware that my own workflow is not for everyone, and is not inherently "better," in any way.

I do a lot of self-discipline "tricks," in order to enforce a certain habitual workflow, and this is one of them.

Many folks get far more done than I do, using very different techniques. I just enjoy the process and the Craft, as much as I do the end result.

One significant advantage, for me, is that I never have to worry about cleaning the house before the boss comes over for tea.

Re: Is It Even Worth Working on FOSS Anymore?

#177

Post by tonyedgecombe »

psychstudio wrote: post #120
cobertos wrote: post #73

Only certain FOSS is worth working on for me. Here's my heuristic as of today. * Don't work on FOSS that supports a SaaS or proprietary product. You're enriching someone else's ecosystem for no money. You take on the communication bandwidth and issue load of dealing with not only your issues but their issues too. Your software is useless if theirs fails. It's thankless. * Don't work on FOSS you aren't using yourself…

Also: entitled users who ask if x can be done, and after a comprehensive answer which took a lot of time and thought say "can you make a demo and post the code. thanks"

To be fair that isn't limited to open source software, I get plenty of that with my commercial software as well.

Re: Is It Even Worth Working on FOSS Anymore?

#178

Post by tonyedgecombe »

midjji wrote: post #16

Yes, The most important thing of FOSS has always been about ensuring an alternative to closed source. This provides people with leverage in negotiation with the corporations and states in a way they simply would not have without it. Beyond this, It provides a pathway for a much quicker evolution of the products, something actually driven by the most driven users, instead of corporates approved. Writing this on firefo…

Nice theory. Sadly the reality is we have very little leverage against the huge corporations which have been helped to their monopoly status on the back of open source software.

Re: Is It Even Worth Working on FOSS Anymore?

#179

Post by adament »

sam_goody wrote: post #150
adament wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the GP wrote: “For many, such a license should be required for use in any org which is over X employees” emphasis mine. If this requirement comes from a clause in the license then it violates the open source definition https://opensource.org/osd because it imposes a restriction on the use of the software.

IANL, and am always willing to learn. What clause does this violate exactly? I would guess that you mean one of the following, but I do not see any violation: > 8. "not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution." > 9. "restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. " > 6. "restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for ge…

Note that both the FSF, OSI and DoD (in your own link) agree that in practice the Open Source Definition and Free Software Definition are equivalent. So if you believe your license is open source but not free software, then you are very probably wrong.
Post reply on HN