91–100 of 454 posts
Not the OP, but I have a similar dilemma. I'm currently sitting on a SOTA ML model for a particular niche. I'm trying to figure whether I should try selling it to the incumbents (in some shape or form), or if I should publish a paper on the techniques, and/or if I should OSS it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably a bit rude, but maybe we can all agree to accept "fork off" as an acceptable, concise, and descriptive answer to unwanted requests.
“Go fork yourself.”
>Maybe it became a burden to maintain, This is literally why i think AI coding cant touch dev jobs. In theory you can code LOADS of projects. Want a panel widget on your desktop environment, dont even know what language its in? ask ai to produce it. but when you have open source projects, people from all over the world bring their requests and problems to you. Some are great to just merge, others you have no clue wha…
unless i keep using it myself.
>Maybe it became a burden to maintain, This is literally why i think AI coding cant touch dev jobs. In theory you can code LOADS of projects. Want a panel widget on your desktop environment, dont even know what language its in? ask ai to produce it. but when you have open source projects, people from all over the world bring their requests and problems to you. Some are great to just merge, others you have no clue wha…
Never done open source but always wanted to. Developers of open source could always ask for a fee to add features, and easy prs are easy prs. But for those more complicated things that don't interest the main owners, could they offer a PR service where if you pay the developers or the project a fee, they'll take the time to review the PR and tell you what to do for it to be accepted, or keep a 5$ review fee and retur…
or ask for a donation. i am maintaining this in my free time. unfortunately i also need to work for a living. if you can contribute something then i'll have more time to work on this. if you need an invoice, i can provide you with one.
i am actually working on a project right now where i want to do this.
The purpose of Stallman’s open source movement was to redistribute power back into the hands of creators who were getting walled out of anything but proprietary work for an employer. If they were fired, they had nothing to show for years of work except a reference, since their deep expertise was essentially meaningless. (An experience I’m sure almost everyone here is familiar with, since we’ve all spent some years on…
I guess it really depends on how popular your project gets. I have no idea if my stuff is used or not[1], so regretting is maybe kinda hard?
I’ll keep doing it, though. Might regret it at some point, but I get so much value out of open source, it feels wrong not to.
[1]: Judging by the lack of patches I’d guess my work isn’t used, though.
The purpose of Stallman’s open source movement was to redistribute power back into the hands of creators who were getting walled out of anything but proprietary work for an employer. If they were fired, they had nothing to show for years of work except a reference, since their deep expertise was essentially meaningless. (An experience I’m sure almost everyone here is familiar with, since we’ve all spent some years on…
Stallman’s open source movement do you want to give RMS a heart attack? RMS founded the Free Software movement to protect the users of software. to redistribute power back into the hands of creators who were getting walled out of anything but proprietary work for an employer. If they were fired, they had nothing to show for years of work except a reference, since their deep expertise was essentially meaningless ignor…
Stallman explicitly warned about working on proprietary software for an employer:
> “If I sign a nondisclosure agreement to work on a proprietary program, I am agreeing not to help you. I am agreeing to withhold information from you, and to refuse to give you a copy so you can learn from it.” This isn’t just about ethics toward the public — it’s about how such arrangements strip a developer of the ability to show, reuse, or build on their own work.
GNU Manifesto (1985).
Most notably, I published a little browser extension I created to scratch a personal itch. It got a little bit of attention and users, and then the feature requests started coming. Among a couple reasonable ideas were big demands like make it work on different platforms, make it integrate with other sites, or make it work entirely differently. And unhelpful bug reports that often didn't even make sense.
Not one of them ever contributed to the repo, and many of them were ungracious and demanding in nature. Fortunately nothing outright hostile, but it still left a sour taste in my mouth for daring to share a neat personal project as-is.
Everything else I've open-sourced has gone pretty well, comparatively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whenever I see someone on HN talking about their moonlighting or side/hobby project, I get chills and think to myself "Boy, I hope they don't work for $BIGCO, because in all likelihood their existing employer claims IP ownership over that work, and if they ever try to do anything substantial with it, they're going to have corporate lawyers on their case." I've had experience with a similar "committee" (probably same…
This is insane. When I am out of work in France, I am out of work. Sure, I cannot write software that competes with my company but unrelated open source that does not being me income - yes.
That can be difficult when you work for a company that has it's fingers in almost everything.