A few weeks ago a wrote in to my Senator on the complete lack of government funding for independent engineers/small projects building FOSS (USA).
NLNet in the EU is awesome. We really should have something like the NLNet in the USA.
Paying people to work on open source is good
51–60 of 142 posts
Re: Paying people to work on open source is good
#52I'll respond to the little part where it puts using a "non-OSI approved license" under the umbrella of open source. It's not OSI approved because it isn't open source, as the community defined it long ago, and as it still makes sense for it to be defined. If you want me to agree with you, don't do that. Otherwise, I don't feel compelled to consider a bunch of disparate things as a Win . Here's one that could be more…
He anticipated your comment and already replied. You're free to disagree with him, but he clearly thought that part through already and already knows he disagrees with you and with the OSI. This entire post is his justification for his disagreement, while all you have is an appeal to the OSI definition that he's specifically rejecting. > “open source” / “free software” > Note the deliberate use of lower case. I’m not…
I used lower case deliberately as well.
It's a term that excludes source available not just because of OSI but because of the original community. And members of the current community can argue for a new, weaker, openwashed meaning of it, but people can always look back to the early days and see the true meaning of it.
Re: Paying people to work on open source is good
#53I'll respond to the little part where it puts using a "non-OSI approved license" under the umbrella of open source. It's not OSI approved because it isn't open source, as the community defined it long ago, and as it still makes sense for it to be defined. If you want me to agree with you, don't do that. Otherwise, I don't feel compelled to consider a bunch of disparate things as a Win . Here's one that could be more…
By picking his own definition of what open source means, is the author really arguing for paying people to work on open source? Or is his argument more one of being in favor allowing a bunch of things that happen to pay people to work on them be counted as "open source"?
For example, if RHEL still counts as open source, then Red Hat's programmers are paid open source developers, but if RHEL is now proprietary, then there are fewer people being paid to work on open source.
Re: Paying people to work on open source is good
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
He anticipated your comment and already replied. You're free to disagree with him, but he clearly thought that part through already and already knows he disagrees with you and with the OSI. This entire post is his justification for his disagreement, while all you have is an appeal to the OSI definition that he's specifically rejecting. > “open source” / “free software” > Note the deliberate use of lower case. I’m not…
I used lower case deliberately as well. It's a term that excludes source available not just because of OSI but because of the original community. And members of the current community can argue for a new, weaker, openwashed meaning of it, but people can always look back to the early days and see the true meaning of it.
[deleted]
Re: Paying people to work on open source is good
#55Sidenote. Some companies offer a "volunteer time PTO". You can use it to contribute to OSS
Re: Paying people to work on open source is good
#56[dead]
Re: Paying people to work on open source is good
#57A few weeks ago a wrote in to my Senator on the complete lack of government funding for independent engineers/small projects building FOSS (USA). NLNet in the EU is awesome. We really should have something like the NLNet in the USA.
IDK maybe we just should let the EU pay for it
Re: Paying people to work on open source is good
#58I'll just say this: I don't think the government should pay for open source development.
Re: Paying people to work on open source is good
#59A few weeks ago a wrote in to my Senator on the complete lack of government funding for independent engineers/small projects building FOSS (USA). NLNet in the EU is awesome. We really should have something like the NLNet in the USA.
IDK maybe we just should let the EU pay for it
We need more funding, not less.
Re: Paying people to work on open source is good
#60I'll respond to the little part where it puts using a "non-OSI approved license" under the umbrella of open source. It's not OSI approved because it isn't open source, as the community defined it long ago, and as it still makes sense for it to be defined. If you want me to agree with you, don't do that. Otherwise, I don't feel compelled to consider a bunch of disparate things as a Win . Here's one that could be more…
By picking his own definition of what open source means, is the author really arguing for paying people to work on open source? Or is his argument more one of being in favor allowing a bunch of things that happen to pay people to work on them be counted as "open source"? For example, if RHEL still counts as open source, then Red Hat's programmers are paid open source developers, but if RHEL is now proprietary, then t…
Even with the changes to RHEL licensing, Red Hat developers are still encouraged to upstream changes before landing them in Fedora (and in turn, before landing them in CentOS stream and ultimately RHEL). Nearly every developer at Red Hat working on RHEL will do work in the public, on OSI-licensed packages upstream, before landing changes in RHEL.
The change to RHEL licenses is not around source availability of the packages themselves, that has not and cannot change by Red Hat's hand. And it is a risk to Red Hat's business to heavily (internally) diverge packages from upstream as it makes future updates harder.
Is it a good move? Many think not. But that doesn't change the vast amount of upstream (OSI-licensed) work that Red Hat directly or indirectly sponsors, past RHEL into their JBoss and OpenShift orgs as well.