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

“Open source” is not broken

nadh.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 259 posts

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#51

Post by jancsika »

tptacek wrote: post #3

It seems like both sides of this supposed debate are saying precisely the same thing, with one side ("how dare we suggest anything is wrong wth open source") taking umbrage for no apparent reason. The premise of "both" arguments is that open source maintainers are being exploited.

There aren't merely two sides of a "supposed" debate. There are at least two sides of a bona fide debate. And you could not possibly have missed one of the sides because its argument was copy-pasted dozens of times on the other post.

The dozens of copy-pasted comments left by mbrodersen on the other post can only be interpreted to be against the claim that companies are exploiting open source maintainers here. Under this argument that was copy-pasted dozens of times, companies paying exactly $0 for software set at $0 are behaving in a natural and predictable manner within "the marketplace." It's an unambiguous argument. It's impossible to miss because it was copy-pasted dozens of times.

Now, I didn't notice the dozens of copy-pasted mbroderson comments being flagged or downvoted. Nor did I notice dang explaining to mbroderson that copy-pasting a low-effort "market mechanics" retort throughout a long thread is against the rules of HN.

And now that argument-- which again, was copy-pasted dozens of times on the other thread-- is in the ether. You cannot merely ignore it and claim that "both sides" are somehow saying the same thing. One side clearly isn't, at least a dozen times, copy-pasted.

So I'm curious what you think about the claim that nobody is exploiting anybody here, because if open source devs want greater than $0 from companies that use their software they should charge greater than $0 to companies that use their software.

I think I stated the claim correctly-- if not perhaps mbroderson can copy-paste the argument here.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#52

Post by [deleted] »

candiddevmike wrote: post #33

I recently looked into open sourcing Homechart ( https://homechart.app ). It's free to use already (for self hosting), but some users wanted it to be open source (almost entirely for auditing purposes, but I doubt they'd even read the code). I don't want anyone using it for commercial purposes, and I found a few licenses that would prevent this-- namely Commons Clause, but at the end of the day I didn't see a benefit…

[deleted]

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#53

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

candiddevmike wrote: post #48
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to allow audits but don't care about Open Source, just do a source available / shared source license like tarsnap.

Sure, but then I can't prevent forks or folks distributing custom builds unless I start doing DRM notices and litigation. It's infinitely easier to keep it closed source.

Legally you can, and practically do you really think people can't reverse engineer your stuff if they want? Alternatively: it sounded like you just didn't want to support it or deal with pull requests; do you care about unofficial unsupported builds?

Edit: And yes, just distributing binaries and not worrying is the least work; I just wanted to point out that you can have it both ways if you ignore "Open Source".

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#54

Post by einpoklum »

> Then why is it that millions of FOSS developers, despite knowing that their work may be consumed by for-profit corporations for nothing in return

Well, that in itself is already some kind of return. Widespread use - even in a commercial setting - means widespread interest in your work and possibly in you. That might not directly translate into $$$ in the bank, but it is quite useful psychologically, technologically (think: issue reports and triage, testing of new functionality, input on future design) and even financially, in a roundabout way.

Still, the main reason - for many of us anyway - is that we wrote, and write, based on _need_: We needed the software, or our friends/coworkers needed it, or maybe we perceived a public need; we wanted to satisfy this need, and there you have it.

----

Nitpick:

> A world without Wikipedia.

Wikipedia could have functioned just fine on some commercial equivalent of a Wiki. Wikipedia editing does not involve working on MediaWiki source code. So, not a good example IMHO.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#55

Post by xena »

gtsop wrote: post #7

Re the author of "open source is broken": The irony of bashing open source on a websiate using systems/code/infra containing thousands of open source lines of code which I am sure he hasn't paid for... has probably escaped his attention. Honestly, I am not sure why there is an argument anymore. Let people write or use free or proprietary software as they see fit. You all know the pros, you all know the cons, make a d…

As the author of that article, I am starting to prefer they/them pronouns. It would be nice if you could update your comment to refer to me correctly, however this is not a demand.

There is a lot more happening behind the scenes than you know of, I make a tiny fraction of my donations public knowledge.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#56

Post by candiddevmike »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #53
candiddevmike wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but then I can't prevent forks or folks distributing custom builds unless I start doing DRM notices and litigation. It's infinitely easier to keep it closed source.

Legally you can, and practically do you really think people can't reverse engineer your stuff if they want? Alternatively: it sounded like you just didn't want to support it or deal with pull requests; do you care about unofficial unsupported builds? Edit: And yes, just distributing binaries and not worrying is the least work; I just wanted to point out that you can have it both ways if you ignore "Open Source".

Yes, I'm trying to build a brand and monetize the app via a SaaS offering for those who don't want to self host and "cloud features" for those who do.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#57

Post by phkahler »

The core "problem" stems from software having zero production/replication cost, and we live in a world where nobody is used to funding development.

Even software companies are charging rent for what already exists, and using some of that to develop their next version or new product.

The zero cost reproduction enables the free collaboration, but doesnt fit our existing ideas around paying for things.

I think that notion that all commercial software is rented needs to be widely understood.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#58

Post by dharmab »

candiddevmike wrote: post #33

I recently looked into open sourcing Homechart ( https://homechart.app ). It's free to use already (for self hosting), but some users wanted it to be open source (almost entirely for auditing purposes, but I doubt they'd even read the code). I don't want anyone using it for commercial purposes, and I found a few licenses that would prevent this-- namely Commons Clause, but at the end of the day I didn't see a benefit…

On Android, the potential downside (companies stealing your app under alternate names, bundling adware/malware, and even issuing fraudulent takedowns) outweigh the upsides.

Consider allowing some trusted users in your community audit/demo access? The developer of the AetherSX2 emulator for Android worked with the PCSX2 team (Open Source parent software) and YouTubers/other established media in the emulation community to verify their claimed improvements and reputation. https://pcsx2.net/301-aethersx2-pcsx2-mobile.html

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#60

Post by nixpulvis »

jt2190 wrote: post #50
nixpulvis wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you practically inforce these licenses? At aquision time in a big code audit? Independent review with mandatory certificates for businesses over a certain gross profit? What are the current ways we catch lisence breach? So many questions... I know that I hate, HATE, thinking about lisences, to the point I typically don't include one, or use some nebulous beer-ware hack. How does a new set of licenses help me?

> I typically don't include [a license]… This would be UNLICENSED or NONE then. Unlicensed software can’t be used for too many things, since it’s encumbered by copyright restrictions. (The author’s right to create copies is, in the U.S. at least, implicit , meaning that the simple act of creating a work is enough to have the “copyright” for it.) There is The Unlicense [1] that explicitly transfers copyright to the Pu…

What about the whole concept of Copyleft? Which is something that seemed interesting to me but I never really understood the full implications of.
Post reply on HN