Live data from Hacker News

No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This

github.com

331–340 of 966 posts

Re: No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This

#331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a term of art, it's someone's opinion. "Open source" means whatever I say it does, whatever you say it does, whatever Apple says it does, whatever ESR says it does, and whatever RMS says it does.

Sorry, can you define each word you've used in your post?

I don't understand what you're asking, can you elaborate?

Edit: I guess you're asking about 'ESR' and 'RMS.' ESR = Eric Raymond, an early proponent of open source as a communal development model ( http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html ). RMS is Richard Stallman, the originator of the GNU project on which the Linux kernel is based, as well as the GPL. RMS disagrees with ESR, in that he argues that the term "open source" is a distraction from the larger goal of free software ( https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....) .

There have been plenty of other authors with strong opinions on the subject but these are the two whose names most often come up in the context. Point being, it is unreasonable to say that "open source" is a term of art (as the GP did) whose meaning will be agreed upon by practitioners and advocates everywhere.

Re: No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This

#332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extending restrictions to affiliates/related bodies corporate is absolute bread and butter commercial legal work. Most lawyers are writing these kind of clauses week in, week out. What you are presumably referring to is transfer pricing, which is a completely different beast.

Writing clauses in a license is one thing, I suspect enforcing them through ultra complex international corporate structures is quite another. Edit: Sadly, I think these kinds of battles are rather one sided.

Of course, licence clauses won't physically stop someone who is fine with wilful infringement. But they're not intended to. They're intended to restrict the behaviour of people who, by and large, respect the law.

It's practically unthinkable that a company like Apple/Amazon/etc is going to create an expensive, complicated international legal structure to conceal wilful infringement of some open source licence.

It's perfectly achievable to write a licence that forbids use or incorporation in products, servers or services from particular companies.

Re: No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This

#333

So you've made something cool and it's time to release it. These seem to be the options at hand: 1. Release under a permissive license (MIT, BSD) and: - Have everyone and their grandma use it. - Die poor 2. Release under a copyleft license (GPL) and: - No company is going to use or contribute to it, unless they can somehow clearly separate it from what they see as their intellectual property. Or just hide it where no…

5. Use https://commonsclause.com or another commercial use restriction with an open source license.

  - Get bashed for not being a real open source by fellow nerds

  - Get licensing fees from larger companies

Re: No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This

#334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not what OP meant at all. He's asking for a license that lets regular devs use your project freely, but require fortune 500 like companies to pay.

In a way the dual licensing could do exactly that, it's just a manual process, and not "automated" by the license.

It depends on the project.

If your GPL project will be so tightly coupled with the company's project that their entire project will become GPL - then yes. Big libraries like Qt, for example.

On the other hand, if the coupling to the user's project is loose and doesn't make their entire project GPL, they have no reason to pay for a license. For example, compiling with gcc or hosting with nginx, or calling ffmpeg doesn't make your entire product GPL.

Re: No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This

#335
post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, this is a fairly trivial loophole to close if you have a lawyer who knows what they're doing. In fact, you don't even need to close the loophole. You just need to make FAANG employees pause long enough to worry that they might not comply, deterring them from using said library.

"I mean, this is a fairly trivial loophole to close if you have a lawyer who knows what they're doing." In the same way that it's trivial to write a twitter clone in a weekend, yes. Hundreds of goverments have tried for decades to do what you claim is trivial. Good luck.

Governments don't try very hard. It's in their best interest that this fraud-adjacent activity keeps going on, or at least that's the only reasonable explanation for why they keep cooperating so well with it.

Re: No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This

#336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s like a catch-22 though. If I start a company using open source and must give away the software I then build on top of it as open source then I likely fail to capture revenues and my company fails. What would be a nice option in GPL 4 is a mandatory commercial licensing fee structure to pay either to author of software or to EFF / FSF if the author doesn’t provide payment details. That would give a commercial inc…

> It’s like a catch-22 though. If I start a company using open source and must give away the software I then build on top of it as open source then I likely fail to capture revenues and my company fails. How is that the open source author's problem? Open source is meant to enable user freedom, not to save corporations money. If you want to use something, contact the author and get a commercial license.

I agree. I guess what's missing is some coordination mechanism for the "contact the author and get a commercial license" part. If it's one author it's easy, but if it's eighty, it's hard to contact each even if they would all be willing to provide such a license.

That's not a problem of open source itself, of course.

Re: No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This

#337
post #21

Seriously. What's the point of open source if companies just steal it, build billion dollar industries on top, and then lock everything down? Apple is telling us we can't run our own software on their goddamned devices, yet they built their empire on open source. Look at Facebook, Google, Amazon. They've extracted all the blood they can and given us back scraps. AWS is repackaged software you pay more for. Yes, it's…

Yes helllo, agpl called, they wanted to let you know to not license your stuff with permissive licenses. If you do stop complaining about the situation

Re: No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This

#338
post #21

Seriously. What's the point of open source if companies just steal it, build billion dollar industries on top, and then lock everything down? Apple is telling us we can't run our own software on their goddamned devices, yet they built their empire on open source. Look at Facebook, Google, Amazon. They've extracted all the blood they can and given us back scraps. AWS is repackaged software you pay more for. Yes, it's…

I'm going to replicate one of my recent replies ([4] which unsurprisingly got me downvoted, but I regret nothing) here because it seems relevant. Specifically, Marak seems to grok the exploitatitive nature of the current setup (chosen in part by themselves) but lacks real negotiation leverage because they have no organization behind them (besides people cheering them on in the comments). With this in mind, I think it's okay for me to get the big scary words out here again. :)

The problem (okay, "a" problem) here is that it is indeed OSS, and not FOSS, that is being used.

It might be worth re-visiting "Post-Open Source" by Melody Horn (boringcactus) [1] on this. You might want to copy/paste that link instead of clicking. :) It has been discussed here before [2] and (unsurprisingly, IMHO) gotten quite a bit of blow-back from the HN crowd.

The General Intellect Unit podcast recently had an episode on the piece [3] and I think they made the point clearer (well... also they roll the piece out to 1h 40min) by more openly posing it in a class struggle context. (Side note: please don't post replies attacking this as communist. The podcast has "marxists" in the name, you wouldn't be insulting them, and I'm merely engaging with their content, so if you're gonna try to attack their/my positions, please do the same and don't just throw scary words.)

The bottom-line is that Open Source Software has nothing to do with the freedoms of the developers. It is...

* a corporate entrenchment scheme: enlarging your hiring pool by establishing your in-house solution as the industry standard, giving you full hiring pipelines and stronger negotiation position against current and prospective employees.

* a capitalist commons: by tending to one industry standard, the companies (not their devs, who will still have full work days) save on duplication of effort.

At the same time FOSS (which does focus on the freedoms of the devs to read, modify, learn...) kind of misses the point by being...

* too obvious a trap, and thus ineffective. No sane capitalist company will go anywhere near AGPL code (and we just had an example on HN of someone trying. it wasn't pretty)

* ultimately not even clear on how this will make anyone's lives materially better, even if it were effective. It's not gonna raise your salary, nor give you more paid vacation, health insurance. As a dev, you'll still be producing surplus value (okay, in a hopefully less alienated way) that will then not be paid to you (that's the definition of profit) so from this perspective the "F" in FOSS doesn't really bring much to the table.

The GIU podcast concludes that yeah, working in IT was nice for a while, because it posed some fundamental problems to capital and as a dev you were in a much better negotiation position. However, those times are over. Capital has found a way to make IT labour just as fungible as manual labor, at least to the extent that we should expect those "rock star" benefits to dwindle soon. Up to us to realize that and take action.

Again: relaying analysis here. Not sure I buy all of it. But even if, please keep your replies centered on the content, not the vocabulary it's presented with.

[1]: https://www.boringcactus.com/2020/08/13/post-open-source.htm...

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24397552

[3]: http://generalintellectunit.net/e/066-post-open-source/

[4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24977616

Re: No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This

#339

What i find weird is people always ask if "you are going to open source this and that". It's a bit rude, like asking strangers to give you their car. I get the trust aspect but still

Most people I know, don't ask that. Some other developers do and I can just answer with a firm no, as I don't want to.

Re: No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This

#340
post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You offer a copyleft license like AGPL but also offer a paid license for those who don't want to deal with AGPL. Since you as the creator own the copyright, you can license it however you want, including multiple licenses simultaneously.

Forgive me for a naive question but how do external contributions to the AGPL code find their way back to the commercially licenced code? Are all contributions to the "original" pre-licenced source? If so is there some extra legalese to ensure that the changes will always end up in the AGPL source too? I know of many successful projects using dual licencing so it must work, I'm just wondering how on a legal front.

I don't understand all of your questions, but the proprietary part of the "dual license" can be anything the copyright holder wants. Qt is probably the most famous dual-license software. Check https://www.qt.io/pricing for some but not all details.

It looks like this is subscription-based, so I'm guessing you can update for the length of your subscription.

Perhaps you're asking whether you're allowed to use development patches written by external people that you'd maybe find in github discussions etc.? If you need that, you will probably have to negotiate for that option yourself. If that is your question, then that isn't really a naive question at all.

Post reply on HN