Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do they really expect him to work on them? I'm 100% sure they know that open source doesn't guarantee that and that he's well within his rights to ignore their support requests if he feels like doing something else.
It's not about organizations _demanding_ that you do work for them for free, it's the constant _expectation_ of it. I experience it myself quite often where users of my software ask about timelines for bug fixes or new features, but very rarely offer to chip in and certainly never to sponsor the work. Of course these organizations have no way to force me to do anything, but it is emotionally draining to constantly ha…
No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This
421–430 of 966 posts
Re: No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
The term of art is "source available" - "open source" means something different.
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.
Re: No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious, why not?
For projects with copy-left license one has to contact all contributors and ask for their permission to relicense: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/33/how-can-a-...
If you have BSD-style outbound licensing and you assume that all inbound copyright is transferred to you, you will wake up in court after you try to change the outbound license conditions of someone else's copyrighted code.
The correct answer is that for any project in which there is no inbound contribution agreement in place, you would have to contact all contributors and seek their permission to relicense.
Inbound and outbound licensing are orthogonal.
Re: No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
I for one wouldn't use a library licensed like this. There are ideological reasons, but more practically, let's say I run a server that provides a public service. At some point, it gets a lot of traffic and I want to accept donations or use ads to fund the hosting. Under such a licence, I'd be completely at the mercy of the author, who could effectively shut down the server.
Is the problem that you have to pay at all - or is the problem merely that in the absence of a listed price, there's no guarantee the price will be fair? Would you also reject a library with this license if you knew the commercial use license was pocket change?
Re: No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This
#425Seriously. 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 not saying there's a radical difference between "free software" projects and "open source" projects or anything, but it really seems like we ought to stop and reflect on where we might have made mistakes in the past.
Re: No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This
#426Seriously. 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…
To nitpick: They are not stealing it, they're using it per the license terms. Don't like that? Well, choose a different license.
That being said, I think there's an underlying point here. The "business-friendly" open source movement co-opted the idealistic free software movement. It was no longer about making the world better in terms of having a software ecosystem that respects the four freedoms etc., but about reducing wheel reinvention, minimizing transaction costs, attracting good developers to come work for your corporation, and so on.
One could argue that the idea of causing social change by coding free software in your basement was always an impossible dream. If you want to see political change, join a political movement and get out on the street protesting or something. And vote!
> Yes, it's managed, but you're forever a renter.
Welcome to 21st century tenement farming.
> Remember when the Internet was actually pleasant? When it was nice to build stuff for others to use?
I started hanging around on usenet in the early-mid 90'ies. Let me tell you, it was already a cesspool then (maybe it was better in the 80'ies, but I was too young then, sorry). Of course, back then it was mostly just people being assholes, not billion dollar corporations weaponizing assholes and hatred to drive clicks.
> Stop giving your work away for free when the companies only take.
I think so far open source has worked out pretty well for programmers, because there's such a huge demand for (competent) ones. If you want a glimpse how it'll look when demand starts to match supply better, take a look at your friends with liberal arts, sociology, politics etc. degrees. Unpaid internships and extensive open source portfolios before you get a real job, here we come!
Re: No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
I should've worded that better. Of course they can't pull the existing versions, but then can shut down any further development and support.
> but then can shut down any further development and support. Not really. A fork can easily continue developing and supporting it.
There isn't much that can be done with lax distribution licenses, but there is still much that can be done under copyright law.
Re: No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This
#428Earlier quoted context omitted.
I for one wouldn't use a library licensed like this. There are ideological reasons, but more practically, let's say I run a server that provides a public service. At some point, it gets a lot of traffic and I want to accept donations or use ads to fund the hosting. Under such a licence, I'd be completely at the mercy of the author, who could effectively shut down the server.
Yep. That's the point. You have the option to use something with a more liberal license, develop something yourself, or pay for it. Yes, maybe at the end of the day I lose out to potential suitors, customers, collaborators etc. but that's my choice.
Most people are likely assuming that the typical author intent behind the decision to open source is to increase usage and contributors over the default closed source/proprietary licensing.
Re: No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This
#429Seriously. 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…
The way you word this is like streaming is the only option we have. It's not. Just buy CDs.
Re: No More Free Work from Marak: Pay Me or Fork This
#430Seriously. 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…
It's not stealing when you've given it away, explicitly and out of your own free will.
But the other side of the coin is that this is increasingly unsustainable. Free/open source software development works best when it is based upon mutual self-interest fostering cooperation and collaboration. At the extreme, it is increasingly an altruistic/parasitic arrangement (on the part of producer and consumer, respectively) where the producer gets zero benefit from their efforts but the consumer benefits greatly.
It has always been the case that there are more consumers than producers. That's an inevitability, and the number of consumers isn't itself the problem. But this simply cannot be sustainable at scale due to the limitations of available developer resources and ongoing requirement for unavoidable commitment. It becomes exploitative because it sets up the expectation and demands that people work for free, writing code, reviewing code, maintaining infrastructure, supporting users etc.. This is one reason I've dialled back all my participation; it ends up costing me greatly in time, resources and stress, for almost zero benefit. At some point, free is actually too costly, and paying for products and services is fairer all around. We have, after all, invented a monetary system, companies and employment laws to ensure that people are properly compensated for their efforts.