211–220 of 377 posts
The rationale from the author of the package who adding advertising is enlightening and definitely worth reading. https://feross.org/funding-experiment-recap/
lol if you need to make income from your work, don't give it away for free. Should everyone demand getting paid now for working on hobby projects?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're too absolutist. How is advertising inherently contrary contrary to the interests of anybody subjected to it? How would you find about a single product people are trying to sell if they don't advertise? E.g. would we better off if we couldn't advertise that free software alternatives exist?
Advertising is not a charitable act done for the benifit of consumers, no matter what anybody in the industry tells you. The relationship between advertisers and consumers is inherently adversarial, and advertising professionals are well aware of this fact even when they pretend otherwise (pretending otherwise is just one aspect of their complex web of lies and deceit. Whenever they do it, they remind me of what utte…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a difference between a company logo and "Try Company PRODUCT for 30 days!" I imagine the latter comes with a link, perhaps even a tracking one, to sign up for the service.
> perhaps even a tracking one Tracking the campaign? Yes, probably. But tracking you? How do you expect that to work? Making ads contextual to the place they are and tracking the campaigns to discover what works and what doesn't is how it should be done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>, why is it so alarming to think that these maintainers might think of a clever idea like this to make a couple thousand bucks? [...] But instead of attacking the guy for trying, I really wish the discussion were focussed on how the community of open-source consumers can contribute back to the open source ecosystem You're (possibly unintentionally) distorting/diverting the issue. Nobody is criticizing open source ma…
This is an unfair go at the poster. He said "I'm not arguing that npm install logs should be packed full of ads (it shouldn't)." That's clear as can be. He's asking the same question I am, how do we get sufficient funding for these projects. Re your patreon suggestion, I thought we recently had an article where someone got little to nothing on that. > or getting hired by FAANG So one way to support foss software is t…
We don't. Only a fool would expect to make a living wage giving something away for free.
From the beginning FOSS has been either interested individuals or employees at corporations with a vested interest. There's no reason we should expect that John Q Developer independently working on a bunch of NPM modules to be compensated by the world at large.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am fairly certain that Apple has hired people who previously worked on permissively-licensed projects to work on the closed-source fork.
They've certainly hired people to work on open-source projects and keep them open-source (e.g., LLVM, CUPS). What closed-source forks have they made?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an unfair go at the poster. He said "I'm not arguing that npm install logs should be packed full of ads (it shouldn't)." That's clear as can be. He's asking the same question I am, how do we get sufficient funding for these projects. Re your patreon suggestion, I thought we recently had an article where someone got little to nothing on that. > or getting hired by FAANG So one way to support foss software is t…
Since when are FAANG companies considered to be closed source? Have any of them snatched up maintainers to continue development behind closed doors? There are examples of large corporations hiring maintainers to work on open source and keep those projects open source. I believe pypi is an example of that.
You might be confused because they build on top of a Free foundation, and do contribute changes back to those layers. But the bulk of their activity is plainly closed, especially the software directly associated with their brands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how do we get open source the funding it needs? Has anyone considered that open source / free software is just fundamentally incompatible with capitalism? Society already has plenty of ways to fund projects -- we even created entire legal constructs, like copyright, to facilitate this very thing. The zero-cost ability to copy software and mutate it (if you have the source) is at the heart of the movement. As is the…
> Has anyone considered that open source / free software is just fundamentally incompatible with capitalism? Legions, many of which have only recently become aware of Free Software or Open Source. As far as Free Software is concerned, there is no problem with capitalism. It's only about guarding the software freedoms of the users of software. "Free" as in "free market", not as in "free lunch".
Free Software can still be incompatible with capitalism even if it doesn't address it directly. If you release your software with a Free Software license do you really "own" it in a capitalistic sense? I'm thinking no. As a consequence it's actually hard to make money with Free Software. But that difficulty and lack of ownership hasn't prevented Free Software from thriving, in fact, just the opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, just this week I noticed the npm package `core-js` used by the Babel transpiler was polluting my build logs. It listed opencollective and patreon as possible channels of support. That I didn't mind so much, but then there was a message (repeated countless times in the logs) that the author was looking for a job. That's just spam in my terminal, unacceptable. Background and heated discussion in the following GitH…
It’s not spam, anymore than your comment is. It’s a message from the author of the free software you’re using. Asking for a job. If that offends you you should get over yourself. How entitled and spoiled you are to think you should have a right to use their software for free and not be bothered by a short message from the author.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google+Microsoft+Facebook contribute quite a lot to open source though. React, Angular, TypeScript, Kubernetes, TensorFlow, etc etc....
To write React Facebook needed 20 years of R&D done by open source... jquery, mootools, long list of dead stuff today we needed to learn from. If Facebook needs 1000 projects to show them how to produce the best React then they need to keep 1000 projects in the pipelines so they can build the best successor to current solutions too. That's why they need to fund open source.
> That's why they need to fund open source.
They do. They pay employees to work on software they contribute to the open-source community. To build React, Facebook had to rely on "20 years of R&D" but also millions of dollars in engineering hours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Advertising is not a charitable act done for the benifit of consumers, no matter what anybody in the industry tells you. The relationship between advertisers and consumers is inherently adversarial, and advertising professionals are well aware of this fact even when they pretend otherwise (pretending otherwise is just one aspect of their complex web of lies and deceit. Whenever they do it, they remind me of what utte…
Can you please list your definition of "advertising" because it seems to be much more narrow than what I know of.