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

Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 162 posts

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#101

Post by Elegant-Ad2200 »

I think this developer fails to address a major concern - companies looking for industrial control software want support. From the page, it looks like your support options are two guys, one in Germany and one in Poland. That would be an immediate non-starter for our company.

The alternative would be to hire one or two developers on our own for support, and then the cost savings would be out the door. Maybe this library is more performant, but it's a (relatively) small piece of the industrial control scheme. A massive shift like this is just not something companies will take a risk on.

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#102

Post by lolinder »

pabs3 wrote: post #54
phoronixrly wrote: post #21

Developments like this one and the faker.js and colors.js fiasco from last week have made me rethink my position about licensing. Now it seems to me that releasing code you wrote for free under a permissive open-source license is somewhere between ill-advised and unethical. On one hand it will not benefit you in any way, on the other, it will be incorporated in a company's proprietary project thus lowering the expens…

It takes a lot of effort and money to enforce copyleft open source licenses, a lot of companies just violate them regardless. Some companies even violate permissive licenses, for eg my router violates the microhttpd BSD license. The latest GPL lawsuit I saw was only possible due to a large grant from amateur radio hobbyists. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/press/qand…

Even so, I'd assume that a company that knowingly infringes on the GPL is much less likely to demand free support, lest they draw attention to their violation. So at the very least it should free maintainers from having to deal with bug reports/feature requests/entitled demands from corporate entities that refuse to give back.

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#103

Post by jgilias »

otrahuevada wrote: post #45

A good compromise for this kinds of things is usually dual licensing: - If you're big enough to make real money and you need my attention then pay me this much please - If you're some rando with a toy project, then we have a github issue tracker A project this size and age should always have a lawyer at hand just in case, and they should be able to walk the maintainers through the process of dual-licensing everything…

What you suggest is not really dual licensing though. It's a source-available license with a free tier.

Dual licensing means that there are two licenses that the user can choose from at their discretion. This is why GPL may work together with a commercial license but not MIT, as businesses have reasons to avoid GPL.

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#104

Post by eropple »

charcircuit wrote: post #77
glogla wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. Or maybe you are just helping the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Whether proprietary software is a force for good or just another mechanism of exploitation is a matter of opinion, and the GP might not share yours.

As a child starting from $0 I built up almost all of the money I have now doing contract work by making closed source software using open source software. Being able to quickly make things without even having to spend any money is great for someone with no money. It didn't make me poorer as someone with $0, it made me much richer. I know my software was a positive to the lives of many people even if it is closed sour…

Are you giving back to the people who enabled you to do so?

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#105

Post by Tostino »

mring33621 wrote: post #91
ReleaseCandidat wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see where it is not ethical. And that's the problem. Many people like the idea of 'helping' other people for free, even if these users never 'give something back' (because they can't program, don't have the time to translate something, ...). But helping other people (companies) make money for free that already have not only enough but way more than you, and you even do the less rewarding work like fixing bu…

At my company, a huge bank, where we use a ton of open source code, we were explicitly told that working on (contributing to) open source was a terminal offense.

Name and shame them.

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#106

Post by ghoward »

qwertox wrote: post #29

Just quoting this snippet from the landing page: "No license costs, no restrictive licenses. Being open source, PLC4X is free of charge. Start experimenting without worrying about license costs or shady license agreements. The Apache 2.0 is one of the worlds most trusted and adopted open source licenses out there." Big companies need to grow up and start contributing with serious amounts. I wonder how this could get…

Somewhat agreed.

I started a poll [1] asking if devs could get their employers to pay. Almost nobody answered. I'm not sure it would be possible to get companies to pay without regulation, as you say.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29893520

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#107

Post by ghoward »

lolinder wrote: post #102
pabs3 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes a lot of effort and money to enforce copyleft open source licenses, a lot of companies just violate them regardless. Some companies even violate permissive licenses, for eg my router violates the microhttpd BSD license. The latest GPL lawsuit I saw was only possible due to a large grant from amateur radio hobbyists. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/press/qand…

Even so, I'd assume that a company that knowingly infringes on the GPL is much less likely to demand free support, lest they draw attention to their violation. So at the very least it should free maintainers from having to deal with bug reports/feature requests/entitled demands from corporate entities that refuse to give back.

Not GP, but I hadn't thought of this! That would be a great side effect of using the GPL now that I think about it.

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#108

Post by chrisdutz »

Hi all,

geee ... a friend pointed me here and I have to admit that I'm quite overwhelmed by the wave my post generated. But very happy it seeded some good discussions.

However I should point out that only I said that I would stop providing free community support. I am only one of the contributors. Even if I am probalby one of the most active ones, there are still others probably going to step up and tackle the one or the other issue someone might come up with.

If the project was just me, Apache would probably have already moved the project into the atic, which is far from happening :-)

Now I'll continue reading all of this ... but I had to set this straight first.

Chris

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#110

Post by [deleted] »

jgilias wrote: post #103
otrahuevada wrote: post #45

A good compromise for this kinds of things is usually dual licensing: - If you're big enough to make real money and you need my attention then pay me this much please - If you're some rando with a toy project, then we have a github issue tracker A project this size and age should always have a lawyer at hand just in case, and they should be able to walk the maintainers through the process of dual-licensing everything…

What you suggest is not really dual licensing though. It's a source-available license with a free tier. Dual licensing means that there are two licenses that the user can choose from at their discretion . This is why GPL may work together with a commercial license but not MIT, as businesses have reasons to avoid GPL.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN