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

81–90 of 259 posts

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#81

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

candiddevmike wrote: post #56
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Okay, so it's not "I didn't see a benefit to having it OSS aside from appeasing some OSS purists. The app is already free, and I don't need the added burden of responding to issues and pull requests (and supporting the code they add)." It's "I don't want to open source it at all". Which is fine, just say that instead of bringing up support burden.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#83

Post by oefrha »

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 (and supporting the code they add).

I just state clearly in README that certain projects of mine are open source but not open contribution. This way people can follow development and modify things to their liking if they want to, but I don’t need to hear from them.

Of course don’t do it if you don’t want to see others repackage your stuff.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#84

Post by chasd00 »

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…

> …the only way I can foresee open source working in the way the purists want…

Well the point of open source is it works however the person opening the work wants. There’s a license compatible with every philosophy out there. Take your pick.

Open source isn’t broken because it can’t really break at all. For something to break it would have to have a concrete form to begin with.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#85

Post by haukem »

ghaff wrote: post #24
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.

Except they're mostly not. While it's not hard to find exceptions most of the maintainers and other coder associated with major open source projects are being paid by companies to do so.

This really depends on the project. Many people just do it in their spare time and have a normal software engineer or similar role working on proprietary software using open source. Some are still at university and studying. Some are contracting and probably also get some new customers thorough their open source work.

I do not have real data, but I assume that more than 50% of the effort invested in open source is not directly paid by a company. For the Linux kernel 20% to 30% of the commits come from people doing it as a hobby, the Linux kernel is supported very well by big cooperations.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#86

Post by rikroots »

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.

I don't feel particularly exploited - but then my OS library is not particularly popular (or widely used). I suppose if the library did become popular and some $MegaCorp built a cash printing product on top of it I could add some code to the library to print disparaging remarks about $MegaCorp practices in the CLI (or whatever).

Then again, I also give my poetry and my (2 completed) novels away for free. I'm not the greatest Poster Child for the Capitalist cause.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#87

Post by ren_engineer »

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…

>professors paid by the university

universities were being paid by the military, who get their money from the taxpayers.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#88

Post by rhdxmr »

Oh my goodness.. if open source had not existed in the world, the world must not be as good as today. The world w/o OSS must fall behind the world w/ OSS.

If open source is broken, it must be repaired.

I have contributed to OSS for over 2 years and it makes me feel fun and feel a sense of achievement. And I feel so grateful towards who had contributed to open source and had cultivated open source culture. I received help a lot from OSS and lots of open knowledge from the internet. And now I want to give it back to open source culture and I think I am making the world better a little bit.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#89

Post by blondin »

eminence32 wrote: post #71
progval wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

why gitlab? host it on github, just don't make the repo public!

but yeah this thread is correct about the burden of issue tracking and pull requests management.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#90

Post by oefrha »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #73
dharmab wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 preve…

> Why would shitty clones with malware existing somehow damage the original app?

Best case, you get angry emails. Hell, Daniel Stenberg of curl fame got “I will slaughter you” because someone bundled libcurl and included a copyright notice.[1]

Worst case, certain scammers are very good at pretending to the the real thing.

[1] https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2021/02/19/i-will-slaughter-you/

Post reply on HN