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

111–120 of 162 posts

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

#111

Post by wizzwizz4 »

guitarbill wrote: post #100
hda2 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damages. Offer two licenses. One GPL and the other commercial. Make the commercial license as costly as possible, even Oracle grade by charging per core. Include language stating that the licensing agreement falls back to the commercial license if the GPL is violated and the violation is not remedied according to the provisions set in the GPL. Any licensing fees collected get poured back into the open source project.…

Is there an easy way of providing commercial licences? Has anybody had experiences with this? I've seen Super Source ( https://supso.org/ ), which I think used to be called Supported Source ( https://supportedsource.org ). It seems to make providing commercial licenses easy. But their website is pretty bare. Do people usually just roll their own with Square or Stripe? I've found it hard to get search results on this…

If somebody is going to be paying you more than $1000, they'll contact you about it. You don't need to automate the license payments; you just need to check your email.

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

#112

Post by aseipp »

Devasta wrote: post #76
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…

No one except the most credulous buffoons really believed the "MIT is more free" nonsense about the GPL, it is, was, and always will be a push to move away from "Free as in Freedom" to "Free as in Free Tech Support". Large Corps won't use your code if its AGPL? Thats a feature, code away without worrying about breaking anything!

It's so funny that if you say that actually the GPL is good because random corporations can't freely utilize it with zero consequence and make money off your labor, you'll get a bunch of bedbugs come out of nowhere saying uhhhhhhhhmmmm, actually you're the one hurting "free" software, somehow, for being so difficult, so cruel, because how dare you prevent others from writing even more computer programs, can't you understand N+1 programs in the world is better than N? And that you are the one who stopped it, you selfish selfish person? And that someone else could have even made money off that? You've practically robbed them pre-emptively with intent. And you wouldn't want to scare away the 9-figure corporation by being mean... would you?

Sorry but I don't consider letting Lucy set up the football and giving it a solid go to be kind and equitable. It's called "being a mark."

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

#113

Post by chrisdutz »

akerl_ wrote: post #52
phoronixrly wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unethical part is that you've contributed (for free!) to the development of closed-source proprietary software.

What is unethical about contributing (for free!) to the development of closed-source software? And if you’ve decided that making open-source software inherently contributes to the development of closed-source software, what’s your recommendation? If it’s unethical to work on closed-source and open-source, do we all just go home and stop writing code?

When I started to work on PLC4X I was hoping people would be using it to build commercial applications and either making money with it, saving money or building better products. That's why I stronly believe in the Apache License and am not a GPL advocate.

However I would never have expected that allmost nothing is returned by anyone.

I mean, I'm an IT consultant and I was doing consulting with other projects that I work on and I'm fine with that. I love doing that, I love giving training, mentoring people and companies to become open-source contributors. I saw that the effort-to-improvement-ratio open-source could bring to the automation industry was just incredible 5 years ago. That's why I put so much work into the project and I continue doing so ... just differently ;-)

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

#114

Post by DonHopkins »

cbm-vic-20 wrote: post #53

"Like with typical Machine-Learning and AI projects, the job of the data-engineer is the least fun part and everyone wants to be a data-scientist, that works with a magically curated data-lake. This is the same with industrial data-integration. Most focus goes onto the projects that allow you to do great things with industrial data, however almost nobody is willing to work on the part of actually getting the data." T…

Just like how everybody wants to be a game designer, so they can dictate to the engineers and artists how to implement all their glorious intricate designs they dreamed up while lounging in their leather armchair, without getting their own hands dirty doing any dull repetitive shit work in Unity3D or Photoshop, then complain bitterly when their minions didn't implement their vision properly to their exacting standards.

Real jobs like that simply don't exist. Not that there aren't thousands of bootcamps and trade schools that will take your money to train you for imaginary low-effort high-prestige fantasy jobs that you'll never actually find.

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

#115

Post by epaulson »

CaptainJustin wrote: post #9

This is dangerously close to being off-topic but it would be good to hear from people interested in PLC4X: I would really like to see home appliance manufacturers extend their products with a simple 2.n IO pin interface at the back. Absolutely minimal. For example: a kettle could have an input pin to turn it on/off and an output pin that just writes whether it is on or not. A simple 4-pin interface on the back in thi…

This is a level or two up the stack and I think it's more "meet in the cloud", but the Home Connectivity Alliance was just kicked off at CES to make appliances more interoperable:

https://staceyoniot.com/will-a-new-standard-for-smart-applia...

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

#116

Post by chrisdutz »

phkahler wrote: post #75

This strikes me weird. This software seems to be under the "Apache" umbrella. But this guys last plea for support is on his own blog. Beyond the "how do we fund open source" thing in the piece, I'm left with too many "what's going on" questions around this. Does Apache support it? Why or why not? Getting back to the blog, he says the comms piece is his unique selling point. OK, so people don't want to support the ope…

If you read my article carefully: I started the first steps on this 10 years ago ... then I was trying to build something proprietary, but gave up on it as it was an insane amount of work for one person financing himself.

After that I started really getting involved with Apache and all sorts of projects.

5 years after my first attempt I started a new attempt, this time open-source and that worked from a project perspective.

I wrote it in my own blog, because I am stopping free commmunity support for myself. It's not the project stoping this. Apache is a non-profit charity and it's dangerous for it to be accused of having monetary interests in what it does.

In order to separate what I had to say from the project I published it on my blog and not even on the mailinglist (I sent a link though explaining why I'll be less active).

Hope that explains things. The title of this thread however was a bit mis-leading.

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

#117

Post by wizzwizz4 »

Tostino wrote: post #105
mring33621 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think it's fair to expect this user to do that. (However, if somebody else knows of a bank like that…)

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

#118

Post by wizzwizz4 »

akerl_ wrote: post #85
rbanffy wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What’s not clear is why the MIT license and closed source software are unethical. Is it ethical to allow unethical behavior?

I feel like we’re in a loop. Are you saying that making software under MIT or closed source licenses allows unethical behavior in a way that makes creation of that software unethical? If so, can you back that up instead of asking rhetorical questions? I write software personally, which I license under the MIT license. I write software professionally, which is closed source. I don’t believe either of those things is i…

MIT licenses enable closed source software that would otherwise have to be open source, is the point.

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

#119

Post by Tostino »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #117
Tostino wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name and shame them.

I don't think it's fair to expect this user to do that. (However, if somebody else knows of a bank like that…)

I mean throwaway accounts just pop up all over. I would never expect GP to answer and put themselves at risk ;).

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

#120

Post by akerl_ »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #118
akerl_ wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like we’re in a loop. Are you saying that making software under MIT or closed source licenses allows unethical behavior in a way that makes creation of that software unethical? If so, can you back that up instead of asking rhetorical questions? I write software personally, which I license under the MIT license. I write software professionally, which is closed source. I don’t believe either of those things is i…

MIT licenses enable closed source software that would otherwise have to be open source, is the point.

“Would otherwise” assumes a default state where the original software was GPL, presumably. But the fact that the MIT license allows for use in closed source software isn’t in dispute.

Do you (and the other commenters in this thread) believe that closed source software is unethical? And if so, why?

And do you believe that MIT-licensed software is also unethical, because it allows for closed source usage? If so, why?

Post reply on HN