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

71–80 of 259 posts

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#71

Post by eminence32 »

progval wrote: post #64
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…

> I don't need the added burden of responding to issues and pull requests You don't have to. open sourcing does not mean putting it on Github with an open bug tracker, you could simply offer tarball downloads, mention you don't support it, and ignore any email about it.

Or host it on gitlab, which lets you entirely disable forking, merge requests, and the issue tracker

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#72

Post by tw04 »

>If FOSS was broken, the internet as we know it today wouldn’t exist; the countless marvels of technology that we take for granted and techno-economies that thrive on them wouldn’t exist;

I guess I just vehemently disagree. Nearly all of the early open-source software that made the internet possible was produced in universities. The only reason it was sustainable was because it was professors being paid by the university, or students doing it for free. Implying that means it's viable for all these other projects that were created and maintained outside of a university setting is just not accurate. There's also this fallacy of: it worked this long so it will continue working forever.

For me the long and short of it is: the only way I can foresee open source working in the way the purists want is if there is a universal basic income. SOMEONE has to pay the bills, and as we've seen time and again, hoping to feed your family on donations is a fool's errand. With UBI, artists of all kinds (including developers) can pursue things that would otherwise be impossible. Without it, we're left with the constant push and pull of people either burning out maintaining stuff in their spare time, or hoping a given corporate maintainer wants the same features and functionality as the community.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#73

Post by EMIRELADERO »

dharmab wrote: post #58
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…

Somewhat of a hot take here, but why is this even a problem? Why would shitty clones with malware existing somehow damage the original app? Every open source app on Android has these problems, but they don't seem to affect the app's existance or reputation. And in the case of AetherSX2, the benefits of a transparent, community-driven mobile emulator certainly outweight any risks it may have. The point is not to prevent these things from happening, the point is to have enough people sbowing support and contributions for your software that the clones with malware become something just not worth it to even care about.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#74

Post by haukem »

commandlinefan wrote: post #4

> boast of their “innovation” and “growth” without … contributing … from corporations that don’t bat an eye at donating billions to (often dubious) “social” organizations - often ones that criticize them anyway.

The legal and fiance constructs of many open source projects are pretty badly organized. This makes it hard for accounts at big cooperation to handle them. Many open source projects are also pretty bad at marketing to non developers and do not have an aggressive founding campaign.

Some “social” organizations are much better at this and have very good people taking care of marketing and accounting to people who control money.

Most members of open source projects just want to code and not take care of tax exception for donations and filing out the correct tax forms in time.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#75

Post by orblivion »

A half baked idea, curious what people think:

Would it be possible to create an insurance policy against these major FOSS vulnerabilities?

The insurance company would then require audits of your tech stack, and fund security research. This is analogous to what car insurance companies already do. And then companies who are not insured are viewed as suspect, etc etc.

There's apparently a misalignment of incentives because there's a break in the chain of responsibility. The idea here is to close that loop.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#76

Post by ratww »

dharmab wrote: post #58
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…

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

I don't have/use Android, so no dog in this fight, but I can say these things happen in pretty much every other non-niche platform: iOS, Windows, Mac. I've even had people cloning a VS Code extension I did.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#77

Post by squarefoot »

The problem is not in Open Source itself but in the environment it lives in.

So many big corporations benefit from FOSS without giving anything in return? Well, then tax them. I mean lightly, say take .01% of the biggest 100 annual profit, then distribute part of it to the 100 more important FOSS projects and part to other FOSS projects whose developers are either unemployed or in financial difficulties, important projects with too few or no maintainers, that is, where it is necessary. It doesn't seem that hard to me, but I'm sure neither FAANG nor any other giants would take this step if it doesn't become law somehow. To become law, however, it may need some changes in our definition of healthy capitalism, which to me is the hardest part.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#78

Post by icy »

sneak wrote: post #38

> FOSS is free as in freedom and not free as in beer (cost). Actually, and critically, it is both! You can't have free as in freedom without being free as in beer first.

You certainly can. You can charge for the software, and release its source under a free license. The user can choose to download the source and build it themselves, or pay for the built software (or the service).

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#79

Post by quadrangle »

phkahler wrote: post #57

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 noti…

Yes to everything you're saying. I'd highlight your points in a different priority order. The fact that our society lacks effective concepts for supporting and sustaining anything abundant is the KEY issue. Your "doesnt fit our existing ideas around paying for things" point.

Our whole capitalist system has no means to encourage us to leave nature alone where it happens to provide us immense value. Our system just destroys it (and eventually itself in the process). That we even allow monopolies on products that are basically just ideas is a grotesque aberration.

Although we need to fund development, a lot of it could happen without funding if we simply supported healthy natural systems and didn't have legally-supported monopolies. The challenge that open-source projects have basically amount whether the developers can live okay enough and not have to deal with competition and exploitation from large-capitalized monopolists.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#80

Post by netizen-936824 »

tw04 wrote: post #72

>If FOSS was broken, the internet as we know it today wouldn’t exist; the countless marvels of technology that we take for granted and techno-economies that thrive on them wouldn’t exist; I guess I just vehemently disagree. Nearly all of the early open-source software that made the internet possible was produced in universities. The only reason it was sustainable was because it was professors being paid by the univer…

In my opinion, corporations and govt entities should switch to a model in which they don't purchase software but instead have internal staff work on the FOSS that's used in the group. This could help the FOSS ecosystem while removing the profit incentives that people have to make shitty pointless web apps. Although I'm sure some shitty pointless web apps will still get made, I think this could shift the dynamic of the software production ecosystem for the better.
Post reply on HN