4 ms·

1. It is absurd to expect to be able to make money from the work they are doing. That said, they may need to make accommodations to allow commercial plugins / c

by shib71 16y ago

1. It is absurd to expect to be able to make money from the work they are doing. That said, they may need to make accommodations to allow commercial plugins / complementary services. 2. The "you give your contribution to us" clause is standard in any open source project. How, for example, will they be able to update the project license if they don't own the copyright?

jarin 16y ago
1. They're allowed to make $200,000 off of the community but other developers aren't? 2. That's not the problem. The problem is making developers sign a contract just to contribute to the project.
- gloob 16y ago
  1. They're allowed to make $200,000 off of the community but other developers aren't? When you can demonstrate to me how the existence of GPL-licensed web servers prevents the creation and sale of proprietary web servers, and additionally demonstrate to me that people will not pay other people to host stuff for them, I will accept that you "aren't allowed to" make money off of this.
- jlcgull 16y ago
  1. They're allowed to make $200,000 off of the community but other developers aren't? Where is your great, timely, mind-share grabbing, relevant-to-the-times project? I would like to contribute money towards it. Otherwise, stop sounding like such a h8r !
- mcantelon 16y ago
  Diaspora is delivering on their promises to their contributors. There is no problem. Fundraise for your own project and you can run it in any way you see fit. Write the code yourself and you can license it in any way you see fit. The Affero licensing prevents some commercial venture from using their code as a foundation, creating a hosted service, tacking on some proprietary candy that locks users in, and out-marketing them. I'm fine with them safeguarding against that.
- fleitz 16y ago
  2. Open Source projects require that you sign your copyright away and assign it to them or offer them a license on compatible terms with their license. Signing a contract to assign your rights or offer your contribution under AGPL is standard fare. How many open source projects did you contribute to where you DIDN'T have to assign your rights? 1. They didn't "make" $200,000, they got $200,000 in donations, and yes, people should be allowed to accept donations. If you don't like the terms, don't donate. I'm sure the Diaspora guys would love it if someone put up another kickstarter page accepting donations towards contributing to the Diaspora code base.
  - aplusbi 16y ago
    >How many open source projects did you contribute to where you DIDN'T have to assign your rights? The Linux kernel doesn't require copyright transfers. Most open source projects don't either (though many require a contributor license agreement).
    - shib71 16y ago
      Linux is well established - the licensing terms are unlikely to change and the community understands (independant of the legal agreement, which they mostly don't) that once they contribute code it is out of their hands. The business of Diaspora is just as green as the code of Diaspora, and requiring copyright transfer is a very sensible way of anticipating the inevitable pivots.

by shib71 16y ago

jarin 16y ago

1. They're allowed to make $200,000 off of the community but other developers aren't? 2. That's not the problem. The problem is making developers sign a contract just to contribute to the project.

gloob 16y ago
1. They're allowed to make $200,000 off of the community but other developers aren't? When you can demonstrate to me how the existence of GPL-licensed web servers prevents the creation and sale of proprietary web servers, and additionally demonstrate to me that people will not pay other people to host stuff for them, I will accept that you "aren't allowed to" make money off of this.
jlcgull 16y ago
1. They're allowed to make $200,000 off of the community but other developers aren't? Where is your great, timely, mind-share grabbing, relevant-to-the-times project? I would like to contribute money towards it. Otherwise, stop sounding like such a h8r !
mcantelon 16y ago
Diaspora is delivering on their promises to their contributors. There is no problem. Fundraise for your own project and you can run it in any way you see fit. Write the code yourself and you can license it in any way you see fit. The Affero licensing prevents some commercial venture from using their code as a foundation, creating a hosted service, tacking on some proprietary candy that locks users in, and out-marketing them. I'm fine with them safeguarding against that.
fleitz 16y ago
2. Open Source projects require that you sign your copyright away and assign it to them or offer them a license on compatible terms with their license. Signing a contract to assign your rights or offer your contribution under AGPL is standard fare. How many open source projects did you contribute to where you DIDN'T have to assign your rights? 1. They didn't "make" $200,000, they got $200,000 in donations, and yes, people should be allowed to accept donations. If you don't like the terms, don't donate. I'm sure the Diaspora guys would love it if someone put up another kickstarter page accepting donations towards contributing to the Diaspora code base.
- aplusbi 16y ago
  >How many open source projects did you contribute to where you DIDN'T have to assign your rights? The Linux kernel doesn't require copyright transfers. Most open source projects don't either (though many require a contributor license agreement).
  - shib71 16y ago
    Linux is well established - the licensing terms are unlikely to change and the community understands (independant of the legal agreement, which they mostly don't) that once they contribute code it is out of their hands. The business of Diaspora is just as green as the code of Diaspora, and requiring copyright transfer is a very sensible way of anticipating the inevitable pivots.