4 ms·

> the community now understands that the original concept of open source has to be fixed because it isn’t suitable anymore to the modern era where cloud compani

> the community now understands that the original concept of open source has to be fixed because it isn’t suitable anymore to the modern era where cloud companies use their monopoly power to adopt any successful open source project without contributing anything to it. Assuming "community" means general open source devs/users, this doesn't speak for everyone. The (admittedly small) stuff I make open source is given to rich and poor, startup and big cloud company alike. I don't feel "taken advantage of" when my code is taken, used in secret, and nothing is given back. I'm glad I could help. Lots of the best open source software are just byproducts of the primary method of making money instead of its sole driver. All approaches/opinions are ok, but not everyone has this vindictive attitude towards how what you give away is used.

tcd 8y ago
> I don't feel "taken advantage of" when my code is taken, used in secret, and nothing is given back. I'm glad I could help. If you make a new technology and an entity bigger than you comes along and makes profit, gives you no credit and contributes nothing in return, you are not going to be "glad to help", you're going to want something in return. These companies do not contribute so they're required to adopt the new rules as a consequence. It's not fair Amazon profits off work others do entirely for free. They should be required by law to contribute a % of profits to the open source community, based on software they've used. Similar to artists being paid a % of streams of their music. You use that NPM package? They have a donate button? You should be required to donate if you're a giant like Amazon/Microsoft/Google etc.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > you are not going to be "glad to help", you're going to want something in return That's not true and the very point of my comment. To each his own, but no need to assume it of others.
- xj9 8y ago
  > You use that NPM package? They have a donate button? You should be required to donate if you're a giant like Amazon/Microsoft/Google etc. a license with these terms wouldn't conform to any definition of open source or free software. if you want that, go for it, but if you've licensed something with any libre license you are already consenting to allow anyone use your software for profit as long as they meet the license terms. you may or may not agree with this state of affairs, but adding these types of restrictions/requirements also means that you aren't doing open source or free software anymore.
  - anth_anm 8y ago
    It doesn't, but it's also not a huge condition on freedom 0. > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html Commercial purposes requires compensation doesn't sound unreasonable.
    - yarrel 8y ago
      It breaks freedom 0.
SloopJon 8y ago
One thing I've found surprising and interesting over the past decade or so is the popularity of permissive licenses like BSD, MIT, and others. I would have expected the essential share-alike fairness of copyleft to resonate more. I don't know if it's down to marketing (the whole viral thing), the influence of commercial users, or if it's fundamentally what people prefer, as you do.
- omeid2 8y ago
  It is actually about fairness. Commerce is a fundamental fact of life and for many projects an opensource approach just doesn't work, this a lot of people have to opt for closed source for business reason, but the very same people would like to leverage libraries and "open software". I do. And this is why everything I publish publicly is under a permissive license.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > I would have expected the essential share-alike fairness of copyleft to resonate more. I have so much to say on this topic I could write a novel, e.g about commercial artists versus those who just want their art to be seen versus art commissioned with money obtained elsewhere. But in the most simple terms, at least with me, is I prefer to write and to use software with as few restrictions on/from others as possible. Can't feed my family on that of course and wouldn't try. If public domain were more accepted than MIT, I'd do it, but for now I just slap MIT on it and move on. If you make a million dollars on it, keeping changes hidden or not, good for you. I'm trying to do the same in my day job, the primary code of which is of course closed. As for the prevalence of restrictionless licenses on non-hobbyist software, you can attribute that to their stewards simply recognizing the value of hobbyists working with it (the company reputation gained, the influence, bug finding, etc). People want fewer restrictions, companies want people.
- sjjshvuiajhz 8y ago
  In my case, I’ve been disappointed many times at work because some library I wanted to use was GPL. I don’t want anyone to have that experience with the stuff I build.
- e12e 8y ago
sauceop 8y ago
The open source projects that are most threatened like this are the more complex infrastructure software that doesn't naturally get build as a side-effect of other work. If you look at a company like Red Hat, they're focused on building things that will work reliably for the diverse needs of their thousands of paying customers. Whereas a lot of open-source contributions are really about solving the contributor's specific problem. Sometimes if you get many people each making a contribution that scratches their specific itch you end up with something great. Other times it isn't cohesive.

tcd 8y ago

> I don't feel "taken advantage of" when my code is taken, used in secret, and nothing is given back. I'm glad I could help. If you make a new technology and an entity bigger than you comes along and makes profit, gives you no credit and contributes nothing in return, you are not going to be "glad to help", you're going to want something in return. These companies do not contribute so they're required to adopt the new rules as a consequence. It's not fair Amazon profits off work others do entirely for free. They should be required by law to contribute a % of profits to the open source community, based on software they've used. Similar to artists being paid a % of streams of their music. You use that NPM package? They have a donate button? You should be required to donate if you're a giant like Amazon/Microsoft/Google etc.

kodablah 8y ago
> you are not going to be "glad to help", you're going to want something in return That's not true and the very point of my comment. To each his own, but no need to assume it of others.
xj9 8y ago
> You use that NPM package? They have a donate button? You should be required to donate if you're a giant like Amazon/Microsoft/Google etc. a license with these terms wouldn't conform to any definition of open source or free software. if you want that, go for it, but if you've licensed something with any libre license you are already consenting to allow anyone use your software for profit as long as they meet the license terms. you may or may not agree with this state of affairs, but adding these types of restrictions/requirements also means that you aren't doing open source or free software anymore.
- anth_anm 8y ago
  It doesn't, but it's also not a huge condition on freedom 0. > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html Commercial purposes requires compensation doesn't sound unreasonable.
  - yarrel 8y ago
    It breaks freedom 0.

SloopJon 8y ago

One thing I've found surprising and interesting over the past decade or so is the popularity of permissive licenses like BSD, MIT, and others. I would have expected the essential share-alike fairness of copyleft to resonate more. I don't know if it's down to marketing (the whole viral thing), the influence of commercial users, or if it's fundamentally what people prefer, as you do.

omeid2 8y ago
It is actually about fairness. Commerce is a fundamental fact of life and for many projects an opensource approach just doesn't work, this a lot of people have to opt for closed source for business reason, but the very same people would like to leverage libraries and "open software". I do. And this is why everything I publish publicly is under a permissive license.
kodablah 8y ago
> I would have expected the essential share-alike fairness of copyleft to resonate more. I have so much to say on this topic I could write a novel, e.g about commercial artists versus those who just want their art to be seen versus art commissioned with money obtained elsewhere. But in the most simple terms, at least with me, is I prefer to write and to use software with as few restrictions on/from others as possible. Can't feed my family on that of course and wouldn't try. If public domain were more accepted than MIT, I'd do it, but for now I just slap MIT on it and move on. If you make a million dollars on it, keeping changes hidden or not, good for you. I'm trying to do the same in my day job, the primary code of which is of course closed. As for the prevalence of restrictionless licenses on non-hobbyist software, you can attribute that to their stewards simply recognizing the value of hobbyists working with it (the company reputation gained, the influence, bug finding, etc). People want fewer restrictions, companies want people.
sjjshvuiajhz 8y ago
In my case, I’ve been disappointed many times at work because some library I wanted to use was GPL. I don’t want anyone to have that experience with the stuff I build.
e12e 8y ago

sauceop 8y ago

The open source projects that are most threatened like this are the more complex infrastructure software that doesn't naturally get build as a side-effect of other work. If you look at a company like Red Hat, they're focused on building things that will work reliably for the diverse needs of their thousands of paying customers. Whereas a lot of open-source contributions are really about solving the contributor's specific problem. Sometimes if you get many people each making a contribution that scratches their specific itch you end up with something great. Other times it isn't cohesive.