I feel open source has turned into two worlds

Post by pabs3 » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 3:40 AM UTC

polotics wrote: post #6

jsnell wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd note that the only thing Apple, Google and MS are said to have done is to use the software. The bug has no actual example of them making demands, "leeching" or acting entitled. The security issues would be security issues just the same even if the library was only used by Linux desktops. (And if the library is unfit for use in other operating systems like the author suggests, feels like it probably is equally unf…

It's high-time for a "reasonable compensation" clause in hobbyists' open-source software licenses I think. Something to the effect of: "if you're using my labour of love to make millions, gimme one of these millions..."

Post by pabs3 » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 4:06 AM UTC

GardenLetter27 wrote: post #20

KingMob wrote: post #8

The current attitudes and licenses of FOSS, while good in many ways, have also enabled a ton of exploitation and free-riding, and people need to acknowledge that. Nobody should be giving Bezos free work.

> Nobody should be giving Bezos free work. Just use the GPLv3 or AGPL, problem solved.

Post by pabs3 » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 4:16 AM UTC

Arainach wrote: post #22

notarobot123 wrote: post #10

At this point, why shouldn't the licences change? Sharing the result of collaborative efforts liberally makes sense. Wanting to be able to modify software and redistribute modifications makes sense. Allowing software to evolve in a broader eco-system makes sense. What isn't seeming to make sense is how OSS software is used commercially and the way that skews the culture and priorities of open source projects. What pu…

There's always a tradeoff in use or contribution. If a project is under a more restrictive license the odds of individuals or companies contributing (or for certain licenses even using) drops radically. If your intent is just "I wrote this thing, sharing the code" license as restrictively as you'd like. If your intent is "I want to build (and/or get others to help build) a bigger thing", restrictions scare folks off.…

Post by Arainach » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 5:24 AM UTC

pabs3 wrote: post #45

Arainach wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's always a tradeoff in use or contribution. If a project is under a more restrictive license the odds of individuals or companies contributing (or for certain licenses even using) drops radically. If your intent is just "I wrote this thing, sharing the code" license as restrictively as you'd like. If your intent is "I want to build (and/or get others to help build) a bigger thing", restrictions scare folks off.…

What is it about GPLv3 that causes a line in the sand? The source distribution, modification and reinstallation requirements are pretty much identical, at least according to the main folks doing Linux kernel GPL enforcement for the last decades. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uplo…

Post by KingMob » Fri, Jun 20, 2025, 6:28 AM UTC

pabs3 wrote: post #44

altairprime wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The crowning achievement of FOSS is in convincing maintainers to accept exploitation as beneficial . The FOSS era can be distinguished from the BSD/MIT era preceding it by its dedicated promotion of libertarianism in all shared source code conversations, which celebrates (quite defensively!) the resulting exploitation and free-riding as beneficial. While this is often presented as a natural outcome of BSD/MIT licensi…

The GPL requires sharing forward, not sharing back.