11–20 of 68 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not use a license that merely prohibits commercial use? And presumably the startups in question are actually adding some value to your code beyond just implementing it with a wrapper. It's not like they are building a business around your piece of code (or are they?)
Because people actively avoid OSS with licenses like that, always opting for projects that have MIT/BSD type licenses.
Is it just me or does this article twist the (rather simple) idea of meritocracy? What you contribute and the quality of what you contribute defines the respect and influence you receive as a result (in a given community, of course). I don't see how that can be tied into "normal" social statuses as this author is trying to imply. Thoughts?
i liked the article until it became feminist. the notion that because there are less women in industry recruiters cannot use a selection criterium that has intrinsically nothing to do with gender, however somehow guys score better on that criterium, doesn't sit well with me. like i'm evil and deserve less favourable treatment because i'm white and male.
In short -- life happens but then the jobs dry up and good talent is over looked or lost.
And, yes, it does happen to women more than men.
I stopped contributing OSS lately after seeing how many startups use some of my modules. Why should I work for free to help others profit? Yet if I use restrictive licenses people just avoid the software altogether. If my open-source software is successful I just end up being exploited financially. EDIT: Downvotes? I guess it's socially unacceptable to not want to contribute to OSS because someone else will just make…
I stopped contributing OSS lately after seeing how many startups use some of my modules. Why should I work for free to help others profit? Yet if I use restrictive licenses people just avoid the software altogether. If my open-source software is successful I just end up being exploited financially. EDIT: Downvotes? I guess it's socially unacceptable to not want to contribute to OSS because someone else will just make…
Here's why you might consider contributing to OSS even though others use it to make money:
If you have contributed to a successful project it's a major leg up in getting hired by someone using that project
If you use that product in your own work, then you are paying that benefit forward and can expect some (additional) returns in the future
If you learn something new/interesting that is outside of your normal work-a-day stuff
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not use a license that merely prohibits commercial use? And presumably the startups in question are actually adding some value to your code beyond just implementing it with a wrapper. It's not like they are building a business around your piece of code (or are they?)
Because people actively avoid OSS with licenses like that, always opting for projects that have MIT/BSD type licenses.
I'm honestly not sure what you wanted. You contributed code to something, and people used it. Some of those happened to make money on code that included yours (I'm sure the impact yours had on their bottom line is debatable). Did you expect financial compensation? Did you just hope for whatever reason that nobody would make any money off any code that you wrote? If you didn't want people to "avoid" your software, you wanted them to use it, right?
Regarding the main point I think it's a non issue. Companies are only interested in hiring OSS contributors to get a feel for their work. There are many other ways to do this. For example since a lot of my work is visual I maintain a demo reel. For others it may be articles you've written or even Stackoverflow contributions. It is not hard to get a job without OSS if you have some way to communicate your past performance.
Also the author says she knows "many" women who have had trouble contributing to OSS based on how they were treated. GitHub should make it easy to provide examples of this right?
I know women have a tough time in certain tech environments, but I'm really surprised to hear of repos where this is happening because perpetrators would have to do it publicly.
Please provide examples of the largest OSS community where this is happening and where offenders are not called out or reprimanded. I'll be glad head over there and back you up.
I stopped contributing OSS lately after seeing how many startups use some of my modules. Why should I work for free to help others profit? Yet if I use restrictive licenses people just avoid the software altogether. If my open-source software is successful I just end up being exploited financially. EDIT: Downvotes? I guess it's socially unacceptable to not want to contribute to OSS because someone else will just make…
I stopped contributing OSS lately after seeing how many startups use some of my modules. Why should I work for free to help others profit? Yet if I use restrictive licenses people just avoid the software altogether. If my open-source software is successful I just end up being exploited financially. EDIT: Downvotes? I guess it's socially unacceptable to not want to contribute to OSS because someone else will just make…
Why did you do it in the first place? Here's why you might consider contributing to OSS even though others use it to make money: If you have contributed to a successful project it's a major leg up in getting hired by someone using that project If you use that product in your own work, then you are paying that benefit forward and can expect some (additional) returns in the future If you learn something new/interesting…