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

51–60 of 162 posts

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

#51

Post by glogla »

charcircuit wrote: post #27
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…

What's wrong with lowering the time it takes to develop closed source software? Closed source software solves people's problems. By making it easier to make, more of people's problems can be solved. There can be less time spent where multiple people remake the same exact thing over and over again.

Maybe. Or maybe you are just helping the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Whether proprietary software is a force for good or just another mechanism of exploitation is a matter of opinion, and the GP might not share yours.

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

#52

Post by akerl_ »

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.

What is unethical about contributing (for free!) to the development of closed-source software?

And if you’ve decided that making open-source software inherently contributes to the development of closed-source software, what’s your recommendation?

If it’s unethical to work on closed-source and open-source, do we all just go home and stop writing code?

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

#53

Post by cbm-vic-20 »

"Like with typical Machine-Learning and AI projects, the job of the data-engineer is the least fun part and everyone wants to be a data-scientist, that works with a magically curated data-lake. This is the same with industrial data-integration. Most focus goes onto the projects that allow you to do great things with industrial data, however almost nobody is willing to work on the part of actually getting the data."

To me, this seems like the inconvenient truth of this latest ML wave. There's lots of activity around using various ML libraies and tools, but they all assume you have input in the right format, that someone is collecting the data you need in the first place, etc.

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

#54

Post by pabs3 »

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…

It takes a lot of effort and money to enforce copyleft open source licenses, a lot of companies just violate them regardless. Some companies even violate permissive licenses, for eg my router violates the microhttpd BSD license.

The latest GPL lawsuit I saw was only possible due to a large grant from amateur radio hobbyists.

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/press/qanda.html

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

#55

Post by oblio »

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…

It's not unethical, it's more like being a "fellow traveler" or in clearer terms, a useful idiot.

People with money (corporations) were always the ones to benefit most from permissive open source, they're best placed for it.

Permissive open source only really makes sense as charity[1], or for libraries you as a developer want to be able to use at future companies[2] or as a component for a corporation's grand strategy.

[1] "Here, have this, I built it and I want to share it so that it doesn't go to waste sitting on my storage."

[2] Only the case if you accept outside contributions with no copyright assignment, since otherwise you have the power to relicense your own code.

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

#56

Post by phoronixrly »

akerl_ wrote: post #52
phoronixrly wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What is unethical about contributing (for free!) to the development of closed-source software? And if you’ve decided that making open-source software inherently contributes to the development of closed-source software, what’s your recommendation? If it’s unethical to work on closed-source and open-source, do we all just go home and stop writing code?

We're getting into technicalities here, but in my opinion the ethical thing to do is to share your code freely for everyone else to use, however at the same time use a license that requires them to do the same with any code they derive from yours. This is absolutely nothing new, ref. the GPL.

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

#57

Post by akerl_ »

phoronixrly wrote: post #56
akerl_ wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is unethical about contributing (for free!) to the development of closed-source software? And if you’ve decided that making open-source software inherently contributes to the development of closed-source software, what’s your recommendation? If it’s unethical to work on closed-source and open-source, do we all just go home and stop writing code?

We're getting into technicalities here, but in my opinion the ethical thing to do is to share your code freely for everyone else to use, however at the same time use a license that requires them to do the same with any code they derive from yours. This is absolutely nothing new, ref. the GPL.

It’s clear that your preference is that people do that. What’s not clear is why the MIT license and closed source software are unethical.

Not everything we dislike is a violation of ethics.

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

#58

Post by cesarb »

collaborative wrote: post #31

The sad consequence of OSS is that the cost of software is fast approaching $0. Only SaaS barely manages to turn in a profit these days and I think that's simply because server-side is the only software still seen as costly. And even then, a common response from customers will be "why do I need to register". People are happy to marry a giant and sign up with Apple/Google/etc. Everyone else is expected to give their w…

> The sad consequence of OSS is that the value of software is fast approaching $0.

You are confusing cost and value. The cost of software might approach 0, but the value of software depends only on how useful it is to its users. One could even argue that a consequence of OSS is increasing the value of software in general, due to an ever growing collection of easily-obtainable useful software.

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

#59

Post by collaborative »

cesarb wrote: post #58
collaborative wrote: post #31

The sad consequence of OSS is that the cost of software is fast approaching $0. Only SaaS barely manages to turn in a profit these days and I think that's simply because server-side is the only software still seen as costly. And even then, a common response from customers will be "why do I need to register". People are happy to marry a giant and sign up with Apple/Google/etc. Everyone else is expected to give their w…

> The sad consequence of OSS is that the value of software is fast approaching $0. You are confusing cost and value. The cost of software might approach 0, but the value of software depends only on how useful it is to its users. One could even argue that a consequence of OSS is increasing the value of software in general, due to an ever growing collection of easily-obtainable useful software.

Yes, you are correct. I meant cost, of course (edited)

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

#60

Post by LadyCailin »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #44
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.

Government grants for open source software would probably be a good thing though, now that this is mentioned. Just like the arts get public funding due to public good, open source software would make sense as well. Even better than most of these things, because by definition, open source is free for the public, whereas grants for arts and even things like research are often locked behind a paywall of sorts.
Post reply on HN