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

Side projects

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 243 posts

Re: Side projects

#21

Post by pjmlp »

icebraining wrote: post #15
Avalaxy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IT companies are leveraging a huge value from OSS without providing enough back to pay developments of more OSS. It is one of the biggest injustices currently happening in the "rich world", but there is no easy fix. GPL?

As someone who likes the GPL and supports the idea that all software should be Free, the thing that bothers me about it is how "closed" it is to projects based on other Free licenses. GPL projects "take" from BSD/MIT/Apache/etc projects (in the form of libraries, supporting software, etc) and only give back with conditions they can't accept. You can say it's on them, for choosing the license they chose, they accepted…

No, because thanks to GPL the code is available.

LLVM is a great project and brought the possibility of .NET/Java tooling to C and C++, but just check the amount of GPU shader drivers, Swift and some embedded compilers for examples of companies abusing BSD/MIT/Apache/etc projects.

Re: Side projects

#22

Post by pjmlp »

hastly wrote: post #20
binarymax wrote: post #2

I hope this question isn't too forward - but my main question is 'how did you afford to do this?' I have had plenty of fun little side projects (some finished some not), but my main project is my salaried position. Aside from being independently wealthy, how can one create and maintain a long term open source project as a full time job. Consulting on the side? Donations? Something else? P.S. Thanks for Redis :)

Maybe we should turn our open source projects into businesses? At least make it clear we're open to taking money for extra features and/or support? I mean, I have a whole list of projects I would like to support in a meaningful way through a subscription for some service, but it seems finding a way to do this is itself a hoop to jump through. Even if I'm super benevolent maybe I'm not willing to do HR/accounting work…

It doesn't work for desktop software for example.

Re: Side projects

#23

Post by hastly »

pjmlp wrote: post #22
hastly wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we should turn our open source projects into businesses? At least make it clear we're open to taking money for extra features and/or support? I mean, I have a whole list of projects I would like to support in a meaningful way through a subscription for some service, but it seems finding a way to do this is itself a hoop to jump through. Even if I'm super benevolent maybe I'm not willing to do HR/accounting work…

It doesn't work for desktop software for example.

Isn't taking money for extra features in desktop software the oldest trick in the book?

Either way I don't think the problem is one of individual users not paying for their apps. I think the major problem is that of huge companies who get business value from the code use it to make money and give back nothing in return.

Re: Side projects

#24

Post by norswap »

hastly wrote: post #16
Avalaxy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IT companies are leveraging a huge value from OSS without providing enough back to pay developments of more OSS. It is one of the biggest injustices currently happening in the "rich world", but there is no easy fix. GPL?

Making everything virally GPL doesn't solve the problem of nobody paying for open source development. I actually think if everything out there was GPL'd, it would make it even more difficult to build businesses and make money from open source software, because you couldn't use open source in a proprietary project if you so chose. I think instead we need a set of incentives in which it's a terrible idea to use softwar…

What about dual licensing? People who don't pay get GPL, while those who pay get BSD/MIT?

Re: Side projects

#25

Post by dragonwriter »

pjmlp wrote: post #21
icebraining wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who likes the GPL and supports the idea that all software should be Free, the thing that bothers me about it is how "closed" it is to projects based on other Free licenses. GPL projects "take" from BSD/MIT/Apache/etc projects (in the form of libraries, supporting software, etc) and only give back with conditions they can't accept. You can say it's on them, for choosing the license they chose, they accepted…

No, because thanks to GPL the code is available. LLVM is a great project and brought the possibility of .NET/Java tooling to C and C++, but just check the amount of GPU shader drivers, Swift and some embedded compilers for examples of companies abusing BSD/MIT/Apache/etc projects.

> LLVM is a great project and brought the possibility of .NET/Java tooling to C and C++, but just check the amount of GPU shader drivers, Swift and some embedded compilers for examples of companies abusing BSD/MIT/Apache/etc projects.

Its not "abuse" to do something the license is designed to permit. Not everyone -- and particularly not everyone who chooses non-copyleft free software licenses for their projects -- agrees that the reciprocal obligations enshrined in the GPL represent fundamental moral obligations that exist without the GPL and that violation of them is "abuse" in the absence of a agreed requirement, e.g. contained in a license, to adhere to them.

Re: Side projects

#26

Post by dragonwriter »

norswap wrote: post #24
hastly wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making everything virally GPL doesn't solve the problem of nobody paying for open source development. I actually think if everything out there was GPL'd, it would make it even more difficult to build businesses and make money from open source software, because you couldn't use open source in a proprietary project if you so chose. I think instead we need a set of incentives in which it's a terrible idea to use softwar…

What about dual licensing? People who don't pay get GPL, while those who pay get BSD/MIT?

Then one person pays, gets BSD/MIT code, and shares it freely.

So, if you set the cost of BSD/MIT code for each release enough for one sale to fund the whole cost of the release, it might work.

Re: Side projects

#27

Post by davidw »

norswap wrote: post #24
hastly wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making everything virally GPL doesn't solve the problem of nobody paying for open source development. I actually think if everything out there was GPL'd, it would make it even more difficult to build businesses and make money from open source software, because you couldn't use open source in a proprietary project if you so chose. I think instead we need a set of incentives in which it's a terrible idea to use softwar…

What about dual licensing? People who don't pay get GPL, while those who pay get BSD/MIT?

Traditionally, dual licensing works with GPL plus a "regular old commercial" license to integrate the library (it's usually a library) into the proprietary code.

It's a viable model for some things, like libraries; not so much for others.

Funding open source is a tricky problem. It is, in some ways, a 'public good' in the economics sense:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

Re: Side projects

#28

Post by icebraining »

pjmlp wrote: post #21
icebraining wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who likes the GPL and supports the idea that all software should be Free, the thing that bothers me about it is how "closed" it is to projects based on other Free licenses. GPL projects "take" from BSD/MIT/Apache/etc projects (in the form of libraries, supporting software, etc) and only give back with conditions they can't accept. You can say it's on them, for choosing the license they chose, they accepted…

No, because thanks to GPL the code is available. LLVM is a great project and brought the possibility of .NET/Java tooling to C and C++, but just check the amount of GPU shader drivers, Swift and some embedded compilers for examples of companies abusing BSD/MIT/Apache/etc projects.

Code under the Microsoft Reference Source License is also available, but would you not consider it an abuse if, say, Microsoft made a LLVM-based language under that license?

The code being available is only useful if you can use it, and my point is that projects under most FOSS licenses can't use GPL-licensed code, which only takes without giving back in a usable form.

Re: Side projects

#29

Post by icebraining »

pygy_ wrote: post #18
icebraining wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who likes the GPL and supports the idea that all software should be Free, the thing that bothers me about it is how "closed" it is to projects based on other Free licenses. GPL projects "take" from BSD/MIT/Apache/etc projects (in the form of libraries, supporting software, etc) and only give back with conditions they can't accept. You can say it's on them, for choosing the license they chose, they accepted…

The aim of the GPL is to ensure that the recipient of a program has the right, from a legal stand point, to obtain and modify its source code and redistribute the result under the same license. The FSF is hostile to proprietary software and criticize liberal licenses because they don't provide these guaranties.

I understand that, but while the FSF might criticize liberal licenses, both GNU and many other GPL projects use code under those licenses, while their code is closed to the original projects. That's what bothers me.

Re: Side projects

#30

Post by revorad »

antirez wrote: post #4
binarymax wrote: post #2

I hope this question isn't too forward - but my main question is 'how did you afford to do this?' I have had plenty of fun little side projects (some finished some not), but my main project is my salaried position. Aside from being independently wealthy, how can one create and maintain a long term open source project as a full time job. Consulting on the side? Donations? Something else? P.S. Thanks for Redis :)

Unfortunately I've no good answer for your question, since I'm sponsored by Pivotal, but if we consider the percentage of open source software created, only a small percentage is sponsored. Many developers simply do it for free, as I did it in the first year of Redis developments, because I had an alternative stream of money to pay the bills. So, my point of view, is that the IT ecosystem is broken and IT companies a…

patio11 has a good suggestion in this article (see the last section "A Brief Meditation on OSS") - http://www.kalzumeus.com/2015/01/28/design-and-implementatio...
Post reply on HN