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

Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 162 posts

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#41

Post by drran »

keewee7 wrote: post #35
phoronixrly wrote: post #21

Developments like this one and the faker.js and colors.js fiasco from last week have made me rethink my position about licensing. Now it seems to me that releasing code you wrote for free under a permissive open-source license is somewhere between ill-advised and unethical. On one hand it will not benefit you in any way, on the other, it will be incorporated in a company's proprietary project thus lowering the expens…

>code you wrote for free >for free How much open source code is actually written by hobbyists working for free? Most of the Linux code is written by paid engineers employed by big tech companies.

Yes, it's because of GPL restrictions: if you use my code, then I can use your (to some extent), so proprietary developers are forced to cooperate, which everyone job easier.

Linux is used by whole planet, but it's not a burden for Linus Torvalds.

Same for KHTML -> WebKit/WebCore -> Blink (LGPL), which is used even by such GPL haters as Apple and M$.

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#42

Post by lumost »

prmoustache wrote: post #34
phoronixrly wrote: post #21

Developments like this one and the faker.js and colors.js fiasco from last week have made me rethink my position about licensing. Now it seems to me that releasing code you wrote for free under a permissive open-source license is somewhere between ill-advised and unethical. On one hand it will not benefit you in any way, on the other, it will be incorporated in a company's proprietary project thus lowering the expens…

I don't see where it is not ethical. At any point you can decide to pursue or stop maintaining the code and anyone can decide to fork and take over. It is just naive to think you will always find fun in working on it or pretend you might make a living out of it unless you have a strong business plan.

In the case of industrial control, database tech, and other high cost fields it would be dubious to pitch an open source product and then abandon it.

Getting a high adoption OSS project takes more than putting a repo on GitHub. In some cases like this one, it’s possible that the underlying cost of these activities is much closer to the licensed proprietary software than the OSS variant (aka free)

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#43

Post by phoronixrly »

prmoustache wrote: post #34
phoronixrly wrote: post #21

Developments like this one and the faker.js and colors.js fiasco from last week have made me rethink my position about licensing. Now it seems to me that releasing code you wrote for free under a permissive open-source license is somewhere between ill-advised and unethical. On one hand it will not benefit you in any way, on the other, it will be incorporated in a company's proprietary project thus lowering the expens…

I don't see where it is not ethical. At any point you can decide to pursue or stop maintaining the code and anyone can decide to fork and take over. It is just naive to think you will always find fun in working on it or pretend you might make a living out of it unless you have a strong business plan.

The unethical part is that you've contributed (for free!) to the development of closed-source proprietary software.

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#44

Post by MrBuddyCasino »

qwertox wrote: post #29

Just quoting this snippet from the landing page: "No license costs, no restrictive licenses. Being open source, PLC4X is free of charge. Start experimenting without worrying about license costs or shady license agreements. The Apache 2.0 is one of the worlds most trusted and adopted open source licenses out there." Big companies need to grow up and start contributing with serious amounts. I wonder how this could get…

Taxes. You invented taxes.

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#45

Post by otrahuevada »

A good compromise for this kinds of things is usually dual licensing:

    - If you're big enough to make real money and you need my attention then pay me this much please 
    - If you're some rando with a toy project, then we have a github issue tracker
A project this size and age should always have a lawyer at hand just in case, and they should be able to walk the maintainers through the process of dual-licensing everything.

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#46

Post by pjc50 »

CaptainJustin wrote: post #9

This is dangerously close to being off-topic but it would be good to hear from people interested in PLC4X: I would really like to see home appliance manufacturers extend their products with a simple 2.n IO pin interface at the back. Absolutely minimal. For example: a kettle could have an input pin to turn it on/off and an output pin that just writes whether it is on or not. A simple 4-pin interface on the back in thi…

The industry equivalents are probably something like MODBUS or CAN. But a kettle which has enough electronics in it to support an isolated waterproof low-voltage control connection instead of the cheap mechanical system would be significantly more expensive.

Also, nobody wants a wiring loom for their kitchen. If you have to do it, do it over zigbee or something.

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#47

Post by pjc50 »

An important Open Source lesson: it isn't really a business model in and of itself. It's worth it if you're scratching your own itch: running it on hardware that you have anyway, to do things that you want done. Doing it purely for others is not sustainable.

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#48

Post by yohannparis »

pfranz wrote: post #17
smarx007 wrote: post #15

I have observed two common reactions in companies not willing to sponsor open-source: 1. "Do you mean we will pay money to develop software for our competitors? Murder!" 2. The OSS donations are not seen as business expense but as charity. "We don't do charity." What we found effective so far is an OSS project, a consulting company and a consulting arrangement where any modifications to the core project will be upstr…

As a peon, I push for open source because I'm tired of doing the same thing at multiple jobs that have nothing to do with our competitive advantage. That goes for a lot of industry collaboration. So much money is quietly wasted on labor that could be saved by standards and open source projects existing.

So true! I don't understand why the government does not provide grants to open source projects that help the most people. Things are changing (i.e. Sweden & France using Matrix), but I see some projects like public infrastructure (roads, sewage, power lines.) If they are good and strong enough, a business can piggyback on it and be more efficient.

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#49

Post by FpUser »

phoronixrly wrote: post #43
prmoustache wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see where it is not ethical. At any point you can decide to pursue or stop maintaining the code and anyone can decide to fork and take over. It is just naive to think you will always find fun in working on it or pretend you might make a living out of it unless you have a strong business plan.

The unethical part is that you've contributed (for free!) to the development of closed-source proprietary software.

Stupid it may be but it is not unethical. We live in supposedly free world and one has full right to decide how their work is to be used. Don't like it, just use GPL or whatever license you might want to concoct to prevent / limit corporate use.

Re: Apache PLC4X announcing end of community support due to missing funding

#50

Post by lstodd »

kanwisher wrote: post #4

Glad he gave up. This is the kind of project industries should be funding. It seems like a bunch of factories got his labor for free. I love open source but its better if its something that scratches you own itch, or someone funds it.

Industry funded TR-069. It is a lovecraftian nightmare, not even open-source efforts could salvage anything useful.

Another industry funded FIX. It is just a bit less of the same.

Post reply on HN