301–310 of 377 posts
What's this "standard" package anyway? Looks like it's packing eslint with an .estlintrc and... that's it?
It's apparently an ESLint wrapper that's worth $2000 in console ad revenue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to see that backed up, really. There are certainly criticisms to be made of how Apple has handled their open source projects (slow to update and push out new releases, not great at cooperating with upstream projects when Apple has forked them, typically cryptic Apple communication practices). But if Apple has taken open source projects, created closed-source forks of them, and hired original developers of an…
I got direct quotes from Apple employees about how their employment has banned them from doing anything related to GPLv3 code in their free time, specifically GCC. I don't want to mention them in a public website in case that gets them in trouble.
What's this "standard" package anyway? Looks like it's packing eslint with an .estlintrc and... that's it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to see that backed up, really. There are certainly criticisms to be made of how Apple has handled their open source projects (slow to update and push out new releases, not great at cooperating with upstream projects when Apple has forked them, typically cryptic Apple communication practices). But if Apple has taken open source projects, created closed-source forks of them, and hired original developers of an…
I remember finding an article on HN about a developer for FreeBSD going to work on Mac OS[1], before returning to work in open source. Isn't the Mac OS user space an example of what you describe? [1] https://www.wired.com/2013/08/jordan-hubbard/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to see that backed up, really. There are certainly criticisms to be made of how Apple has handled their open source projects (slow to update and push out new releases, not great at cooperating with upstream projects when Apple has forked them, typically cryptic Apple communication practices). But if Apple has taken open source projects, created closed-source forks of them, and hired original developers of an…
I got direct quotes from Apple employees about how their employment has banned them from doing anything related to GPLv3 code in their free time, specifically GCC. I don't want to mention them in a public website in case that gets them in trouble.
I didn't see anyone mention the amount of libraries this is depended on in in the comments. according to npm's site, it's 441 as I post this. The developer himself claims about 33340 other projects use it. (or at the very least, that's what his automated use counter says: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/standard/standard-packages... ) Probably a good thing this was caught early, as the typically large number of nod…
I know this is a controversial opinion and I know it won’t directly solve the issue at hand, but it’s related and it addresses some of the concerns raised by many people in this thread: how do we get open source the funding it needs? Consider a world where the norm is not MIT/BSD but GPL dual licensed with MIT for a fee. This would give back control to maintainers of a library, and it would allow people without funds…
There's a good article about this practice here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.en.html Usually you wouldn't use the MIT license to do it, but it's the same idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true of all software whether you're Facebook or a solo open-source developer; we all stand on the shoulders of giants, literally nobody doing work today can claim otherwise. > 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 engineerin…
Funding open source != paying thirty people a few hundred grand and the thousands they depend on nothing. It is an obvious resource allocation problem. Why should the resources not come from the companies extracting the most cash value from open source?
This is easy to answer: Because most/all those open source writers explicitly said it's OK for the users of their software not to provide them cash for it. If I openly say you can use my stuff for free, and then later come and say you are morally obligated to pay me because you made huge profit from my stuff, then my integrity is compromised.
It's totally fine to say "I will no longer respond to support tickets for free", though.
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…
> The relationship between advertisers and consumers is inherently adversarial That is naive thinking. Advertising exists to reduce friction in the market. I'm a lot more likely to buy something if I know it exists. I won't go to the movies unless I've seen a trailer, for instance. Maybe installing an adblocker doesn't super negatively impact your life but if we completely stop advertising as a practice then spending…
Far from negatively impacting your life at all, blocking ads significantly improves it. Try it out yourself. I think you'll find that through various interactions with the general public, people who aren't paid to lie about products or services, you still find out about movies worth watching.
I know bountysource exists, but I rarely see it brought up.
Wouldn't work for all packages or projects, but for the ones with big corporate use that are still being developed, it seems like a straight forward way to have a project be more self sustaining vs hoping ppl decide to donate.
Seems like a decent first step towards a wider system that could track what packages you use, or that you manually list, with each package or project having a monthly "sustainability goal" set by the maintainer. So that critical packages used by everyone can have more visibility and a more dynamic support system with lower barrier between the maintainer and the wider community. I've always felt that the "subscription" model of things like patreon or similar is too much of a mental commitment for most ppl. Besides, my needs change month to month, and so would what I want to support. Having wider "sustainability" goals with an easy way to donate to them would encourage me to efficiently support the projects I find most useful or inspiring to me. Basically having the data and seeing what projects that are important to me and are currently short funded, and also having an easy system to directly support them without long term commitments.
It's that visibility of the current state of different foss projects that I feel needs to be addressed, before any creative solutions on monetization can really be layered on top.