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

Sorry everybody, I failed with you

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 357 posts

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#21

Post by ulzeraj »

intricatedetail wrote: post #6

That's the dark side of open source. Companies think these projects grow on trees and they use them without paying anything. We need law changes to ensure that open source can be sustainable and companies pay the fair share of revenue they make by using it.

> We need law changes to ensure that open source can be sustainable and companies pay the fair share of revenue they make by using it.

We don't need more laws. There is something called a License Agreement.

However if you publish your stuff on GPL and other permissive licenses you can't really complain about Amazon, Google and Microsoft making millions on your code while you beg for donations on your Github page.

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#22

Post by fock »

and of course: it's javascript! because literally every other community would have no problem if their doc-generator got unmaintained, because it would probably run for another ten years...

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#23

Post by krapp »

intricatedetail wrote: post #6

That's the dark side of open source. Companies think these projects grow on trees and they use them without paying anything. We need law changes to ensure that open source can be sustainable and companies pay the fair share of revenue they make by using it.

You don't own the open source software you write, so you don't have the right to make demands of its users beyond what the license stipulates. That companies can make billions with your software and not owe you so much as a cup of coffee is not the dark side of open source, it's an expression of the same freedom that allows you to fork and reuse any FOSS software under the same terms.

If you want to require payment from anyone who uses your software, use a proprietary license and charge money. The "fair share of revenue" in free for free and open source software is correctly "zero."

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#24

Post by arkitaip »

danbmil99 wrote: post #2

This may be an obvious point but how can you say you failed when due to the fact that it's open source, anybody could check out the code and start supporting it?

How about the insane entitlement that many devs have when it comes to open source? Getting bombarded with requests and angry emails from people who demand free support and bug fixes can burn anyone out.

I think Github can be a positive force for change here. Redesign the UI to encourage donations, to encourage people to get involved in project work, to write less hostile issues, etc. If devs and designers can weaponize UI to create addiction, anxiety and FOMO, maybe we can use the same tools for good for once.

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#25

Post by antran22 »

intricatedetail wrote: post #6

That's the dark side of open source. Companies think these projects grow on trees and they use them without paying anything. We need law changes to ensure that open source can be sustainable and companies pay the fair share of revenue they make by using it.

The point of open source is people can use it freely. A better project, which hits the right spots will naturally attract financial and technical support, both from the companies and the community. It is really just a free market, where the best projects survive.

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#26

Post by throw_m239339 »

danbmil99 wrote: post #2

This may be an obvious point but how can you say you failed when due to the fact that it's open source, anybody could check out the code and start supporting it?

Agreed, I would never write such a message. I have zero responsibility toward the users of my open source code, and my license does reflect that fact, unless they pay me.

You're not satisfied with my open source work? Fork and fix it. You can't fix it? Hire somebody who can. You don't have the money to hire somebody who can? Then find other users, do a fundraiser and hire somebody who can fix the code.

This culture of entitlement has gone way too far. Some companies make billions out of some open source project yet never contribute a cent or a man hour back yet you still find engineers from these companies complaining on github issues that bugs aren't resolved quickly enough.

I say this, this might be the golden age of open source now but it's not going to last. Users have become too petty and entitled.

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#27

Post by KirillPanov »

fock wrote: post #22

and of course: it's javascript! because literally every other community would have no problem if their doc-generator got unmaintained, because it would probably run for another ten years...

There's really something to be said for software that is so ruthlessly simple it runs forever without maintenance. Like most of what DJB has written: djbdns still works after all these years... And of course Knuth's TeX.

Maybe people shouldn't start software projects if there isn't a "can leave it here unmaintained" milestone within sight.

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#28

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

antran22 wrote: post #16
robin_reala wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think part of the worry of handing projects over stems from a couple of fairly high-profile events when projects were handed over to theoretically trust-worthy people who went rogue and used them as a platform for malware or spear phishing. Suddenly, even just relinquishing control can be a bad thing for the community.

The thing is, if the new project maintainers go against the community, but the community really need to use it, the community will just fork out a new path and move on. If the project is really open source.

I don’t think that really happens, anymore.

Twenty years ago, they would have done that, but these days, someone would just write a replacement from scratch (quite possibly, proprietary), or everyone would abandon it, along with their own projects that depend on it.

Most open-source (and closed-source) APIs and SDKs are “Swiss Army knife” projects, with many functions that serve many purposes. Most API consumers use only a subset of the interface, so “rolling their own” is not that intimidating.

I think with all the security problems that we’re seeing, these days, we may be headed for some agency/consortium that validates dependencies (with all the myriad problems, therein).

We may be seeing more “semi-proprietary” stuff, soon.

Not necessarily a bad thing, as I think that anyone that makes money on software should probably pay for it.

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#29

Post by throw_m239339 »

KirillPanov wrote: post #27
fock wrote: post #22

and of course: it's javascript! because literally every other community would have no problem if their doc-generator got unmaintained, because it would probably run for another ten years...

There's really something to be said for software that is so ruthlessly simple it runs forever without maintenance. Like most of what DJB has written: djbdns still works after all these years... And of course Knuth's TeX. Maybe people shouldn't start software projects if there isn't a "can leave it here unmaintained" milestone within sight.

> Maybe people shouldn't start software projects if there isn't a "can leave it here unmaintained" milestone within sight.

It's because these projects have tons of dependencies and moving parts which tend to break themselves (often for very little reasons) so of course it's going to affect upstream.

The software you listed are usually mostly self-contained or rely on stable projects.

There is no such thing as "stability" in the Node.js ecosystem (which isn't javascript itself).

Re: Sorry everybody, I failed with you

#30

Post by ans123 »

krapp wrote: post #23
intricatedetail wrote: post #6

That's the dark side of open source. Companies think these projects grow on trees and they use them without paying anything. We need law changes to ensure that open source can be sustainable and companies pay the fair share of revenue they make by using it.

You don't own the open source software you write, so you don't have the right to make demands of its users beyond what the license stipulates. That companies can make billions with your software and not owe you so much as a cup of coffee is not the dark side of open source, it's an expression of the same freedom that allows you to fork and reuse any FOSS software under the same terms. If you want to require payment f…

Please stop the misinformation: Open source authors do own their IP, but are altruistic enough to license it to others.

In the long term, altruism only works if there aren't too many leeches. Up to 2010, OSS authors at least got recognition, could stay aloof and in general weren't little corporate bitches.

Now, this has changed, so there is no longer any point of writing OSS for free. The corporations have won their long term game, using the freedom propaganda until they owned most of it.

Post reply on HN