21–30 of 259 posts
Its probably time for the next generation of open source licensing to make the code not usable for profit making purposes, thus ensuring open source is either funded by the companies that use it or forms its own separate community away from corporations.
There are only very few cases in which GPL is ideal.
Its probably time for the next generation of open source licensing to make the code not usable for profit making purposes, thus ensuring open source is either funded by the companies that use it or forms its own separate community away from corporations.
Re the author of "open source is broken": The irony of bashing open source on a websiate using systems/code/infra containing thousands of open source lines of code which I am sure he hasn't paid for... has probably escaped his attention. Honestly, I am not sure why there is an argument anymore. Let people write or use free or proprietary software as they see fit. You all know the pros, you all know the cons, make a d…
It seems like both sides of this supposed debate are saying precisely the same thing, with one side ("how dare we suggest anything is wrong wth open source") taking umbrage for no apparent reason. The premise of "both" arguments is that open source maintainers are being exploited.
FOSS is the victim in a way, but that means it must defend itself. OSI needs to get off their asses and acknowledge the problem and work with the community to develop licenses that limit SaaSification and other forms of appropriation in a way that is compatible with the principles of open source and lacks the optics (FUD) problems of the GPL approach. I’m not holding my breath since the OSI is funded almost entirely…
There's another option -- those seeking to SaaSify F/OSS can support/partner the software they use. Sustainable hosting isn't something that larger corporations are into, but the right companies can do it, and as companies that have this mindset/condition built in (best if in writing, of course) grow, F/OSS becomes more sustainable by default. All it takes is a reasonable % of revenue contribution to the F/OSS poweri…
> If there was a paywall, even for $1, how many people would install a library? I would LOVE this solution. I use open source professionally, and I continually advocate for ways to pay open source projects and developer. And if there's a way to pay extra to fund a feature, or hire a developer as a consultant, so much the better. In my experience, companies are highly willing and able to pay for software and services…
The are also willing to buy things and keep everyone else from using them.
Re the author of "open source is broken": The irony of bashing open source on a websiate using systems/code/infra containing thousands of open source lines of code which I am sure he hasn't paid for... has probably escaped his attention. Honestly, I am not sure why there is an argument anymore. Let people write or use free or proprietary software as they see fit. You all know the pros, you all know the cons, make a d…
This is literally the 'yet you participate in society' argument.
Its probably time for the next generation of open source licensing to make the code not usable for profit making purposes, thus ensuring open source is either funded by the companies that use it or forms its own separate community away from corporations.
Its probably time for the next generation of open source licensing to make the code not usable for profit making purposes, thus ensuring open source is either funded by the companies that use it or forms its own separate community away from corporations.
If AWS wants to use it, the entirety of their platform would have to be open. Billing system, machine provisioning, networking, database failover -- everything.
They won't do it. But someone with ambition will, and they'll start to grow a platform that is less risky and increasingly more attractive. As it gains steam, it could become not only a refuge from cloud lock in, but a huge threat to existing players.
In particular, this doesn't make any sense:
> While I believe that it is unethical for large for-profit corporations to not support FOSS projects from which they derive (extract?) immense amounts of value, it is not illegal, thanks to the system.
It's been made specifically, intensionally legal by the people creating it. So of course it's legal, and it's weird to say, "I went out of my way to make this free, but it's unethical for you to actually use it for free".
In capitalism, you have the right to set your own price for your labor and property, and there are lots of mechanisms for charging people for stuff. That's what all these software vendors are doing! In contrast, the MIT and Apache licenses say "I made this but do whatever you want". We choose this license when making things because we want everyone to do what they want. We can't be angry when they do.