11 ms·

I've never understood software engineers and organisations who contribute their code to the open source and free software worlds and then think they're owed com

I've never understood software engineers and organisations who contribute their code to the open source and free software worlds and then think they're owed compensation for it. We're writing this code because we need this code and think others might also need it and we have empathy for them and we benefit from their empathy for us - that's why we share. That's why we're here. Why do you share? Why are you here? It might be an unpopular opinion but - to all you disgruntled open source/free software developers threatening to take their code closed via licencing shitfuckery ala "Commons Clause" nonsense and/or engaged in shady shit like this: If you feel you're owed compensation for your time beyond other people using and building on your code - this is not the place for you and your toxicity makes the open source and free software world a worse place. Please leave quietly and quickly. Stop saying "uncompensated time" - nobody owes you anything. You don't owe anyone else anything either - leave and let other, more reasonable, people maintain and carry on with the code you once freely gave - just as they should, if they find it useful. That's how it's supposed to work - that's how it should work. Thank you very much for your time and code. It is deeply appreciated; now go away and stop being an asshole.

JohnFen 7y ago
Yeah, I'm ambivalent about this issue. I've been significantly contributing to the OSS world for a very, very long time. I never did so with the expectation that I would see a dime from that activity -- that's not the reason I put the effort in. So, my instinct is to say that OSS devs knew what deal was from the very start, and if they're not OK with "unpaid work", then they should stop doing it rather than complain. On the other hand, OSS has become critical infrastructure, and as such, the stability that comes with people being able to earn a living with it seems like a desirable thing. So, I don't know. I think there are valid points all around on this. That said, I also think that what happened with Fritzing is simply wrong regardless.
- kiba 7y ago
  Open source does not have to be charity. You are allowed to sell OSS. It's not even against the spirit.
  - justinjlynn 7y ago
    Selling open source software itself is rather pointless - anyone can copy the code for free and it's not even wrong do so. You sell services based on the code and on changing the code - not gating access to the code itself. You don't "sell OSS" - you sell around it and make money from it - not by it. It's unsurprising people continue to be confused on this point if we continue to be so unclear about it on the average.
    - kiba 7y ago
      Users don't care about the code. They care about convenience.
      - justinjlynn 7y ago
        You're damn right. Make it easy for users to use your code, to get help when they need it and don't entrap them via lock-in mechanisms so they can leave when they need to leave and they'll beat a path to your door.
      - m-p-3 7y ago
        A good example is Synergy (Symless). The code is open-souce and freely accessible, but the compiled binaries are available for a fee. Nothing stops you from grabbing the code and compile it, or you can pay for the convenience.
    - sargun 7y ago
      You can sell the compiled artifacts as well. OSS doesn’t mean free (as in beer) either. If you have a license that says that you must pay money to operate it commercially, that’s another way to make money from OSS.
      - justinjlynn 7y ago
        > If you have a license that says that you must pay money to operate it commercially, that’s another way to make money from OSS. No. Absolutely not. Licences which add restrictions based on field of endeavour are not Open Source licences. Period. https://opensource.org/docs/osd https://opensource.org/docs/osd Point 6. Period. > You can sell the compiled artifacts as well. Yes, of course you can sell the service of providing compiled binaries. Everyone will be annoyed if you charge for the builds of your software - but that's your prerogative. Someone else will just provide a free unofficial build (See CentOS, etc) if it's useful. Suit yourself. shrug
- JeremySecond 7y ago
  > On the other hand, OSS has become critical infrastructure Those for whom it is critical are not forbidden from paying for its maintenance, if they need it.
ci5er 7y ago
I think I agree with you? Way back when (not that far back, from my point of view, but longer than many denizens of this site have been alive), we used to have usenet and ftp sites and tarballs that compiled (usually) on some subset of Unixen. I liked that. You could throw up period tarballs, with Readmes (they were .txt, not .md, but close enough), and usually had instructions like ./configure; make; make install. People could yell at you on comp.graphics. Usually they didn't - and often discussions would ensue. Maybe I was young (if I ever was?), but it felt pretty zen to me at the time. More recently, I had a package - I forget what it was - I think it might have been a python package that would take PlantUML-like-syntax things and turn them into SVGs or something. I put it up on github thinking that this would be the equivalent of throwing a tarball over the wall. OMG! I was wrong. The tickets/issues/demands/complaints - not questions - were beyond belief! I've never asked for compensation for an open-sourced package - high or low quality - but I could see that the shrill demands might drive one to want to demand compensation! These days I've more-or-less retired back to throwing tar-balls to people who know me and ask me for them. I still ask for no money. I still respond to emails with questions. But I refuse to be held hostage to "the community". Serious question to Parent: Does that make me a selfish asshole?
- justinjlynn 7y ago
  No, not at all. You don't owe anyone anything - but please consider their demands an indicator of unmet need. Github and other platforms make it easy for users and colleagues to contact project engineers and maintainers with new demands and PRs. You also get so much more exposure and help - but it's not without downside, as you say. Of course, you're free to step up and solve their problems or ignore them. Offer consulting services if you'd like. Thank you for your code and your generosity either way you choose. But, and this is key, if you choose to ignore the issues/requests and/or only accept consulting contracts to fix them: be up front about it in your README. Turn off issues on github and put the fact that you don't accept PRs in your repo notice/description. Now, if you do that, don't be surprised if someone forks your code and picks up the maintainership. Don't try to take back your open source code. Don't complain about the other party's stewardship - a role you explicitly chose to abdicate. Don't sabotage the community. Those are pretty much the very few things that would make you a selfish asshole in my book, friend. Thank you for your code and I'm sorry other people can be real assholes sometimes - especially to people who give their hard work away to prevent others from maybe having to do the same. Fortunately, there are usually others who will step up and help maintain the project and deal with these demanding ungrateful bastards - seek them out openly, they're invaluable friends. If we're upfront and honest with each other about needing help - we're stronger together.
bcheung 7y ago
I don't understand the licensing of the parts library. I wanted to use it in my own tool I was creating and I see from the parts library LICENSE.txt: > All graphics and documentation of Fritzing are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareALike 3.0 Unported. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ for the full description. But in their FAQ they say: > However, we do not allow the use of Fritzing part graphics in other software systems at the moment. If you think we should make an exception for you, please contact us. What gives? Is it creative commons or not? If you are someone who creates a part you want it to be available in every software out there. You don't want to create the same part in Eagle and then in KiCad, and then in Fritzing, and then in 5 other ones as well. Submitting it to something that is Creative Commons has that expectation. Fritzing is effectively saying, it's "creative commons" but we're still allowed to completely control it and prevent others from using it? That's exactly the opposite of what CC says. WTF?
- justinjlynn 7y ago
  That kind of licensing is the toxic bullshit I'm talking about. Ignore and avoid.
rstuart4133 7y ago
> I've never understood software engineers and organisations who contribute their code to the open source and free software worlds and then think they're owed compensation for it. It's obvious isn't it? The logic goes "I need to eat" + "I develop open source software" => "I need to be paid for developing open source software". The only problem with it is the world then live in doesn't support their implied version of the "=>" operator. People fall into this trap all the time. "Men like porn" + "Men like sex" => "Porn turns men into sex addicts". "Criminals commit crime" + "Jailing criminals stops them committing crime" => "We will be better off it we spend a lot of money on keeping criminals in jail". Taking the time to understand the underlying mechanism that drives open source takes effort. Yes, it started when people scratched itches when they had nothing better to and gave away the result for free. If you have a certain mind set giving it away for free is the natural thing to do. A true idealist might try dedicating their life to it, but find it is very difficult as they have to eat. Most of us acknowledge that reality and move on. After moving on some of us found to our delight that it made business sense in the places we worked in to give away some our work for free. This wasn't because we convinced business to share our ideals at their expense. It happened because we brought open source into the business. The business then discovered it was pure (if perhaps enlightened) pragmatism to let us give away some of our work, because the business got far more back from the ecosystem than they contributed; mostly because contributing the work they were going to pay us to do anyway costs almost nothing and as a lot of other businesses are doing the same thing, it amplified that feed back effect. Combine that with copyleft licences like the GPL providing a way to keep parasites under control so we could avoid the tragedy of the commons, and business found they too can be part of a wonderful virtuous cycle. This is the mechanism that drives most of open source development today. Since open source has eaten the world I'd say it's been very successful. But nonetheless not all of us get to participate. If you didn't find such a place to work then most of your open source efforts mostly died because worshipping ideals doesn't put food on the plate. Such is life. Accept it and move on. But if you are both stubborn and idealistic it can take a while to realise you don't have a lot of choice in this. Asking people to pay for your open source software is a stop along the path to discovering your simplistic "=>" operator doesn't and will never exist in the real world, no matter how much you want it to.

JohnFen 7y ago

Yeah, I'm ambivalent about this issue. I've been significantly contributing to the OSS world for a very, very long time. I never did so with the expectation that I would see a dime from that activity -- that's not the reason I put the effort in. So, my instinct is to say that OSS devs knew what deal was from the very start, and if they're not OK with "unpaid work", then they should stop doing it rather than complain. On the other hand, OSS has become critical infrastructure, and as such, the stability that comes with people being able to earn a living with it seems like a desirable thing. So, I don't know. I think there are valid points all around on this. That said, I also think that what happened with Fritzing is simply wrong regardless.

kiba 7y ago
Open source does not have to be charity. You are allowed to sell OSS. It's not even against the spirit.
- justinjlynn 7y ago
  Selling open source software itself is rather pointless - anyone can copy the code for free and it's not even wrong do so. You sell services based on the code and on changing the code - not gating access to the code itself. You don't "sell OSS" - you sell around it and make money from it - not by it. It's unsurprising people continue to be confused on this point if we continue to be so unclear about it on the average.
  - kiba 7y ago
    Users don't care about the code. They care about convenience.
    - justinjlynn 7y ago
      You're damn right. Make it easy for users to use your code, to get help when they need it and don't entrap them via lock-in mechanisms so they can leave when they need to leave and they'll beat a path to your door.
    - m-p-3 7y ago
      A good example is Synergy (Symless). The code is open-souce and freely accessible, but the compiled binaries are available for a fee. Nothing stops you from grabbing the code and compile it, or you can pay for the convenience.
  - sargun 7y ago
    You can sell the compiled artifacts as well. OSS doesn’t mean free (as in beer) either. If you have a license that says that you must pay money to operate it commercially, that’s another way to make money from OSS.
    - justinjlynn 7y ago
      > If you have a license that says that you must pay money to operate it commercially, that’s another way to make money from OSS. No. Absolutely not. Licences which add restrictions based on field of endeavour are not Open Source licences. Period. https://opensource.org/docs/osd https://opensource.org/docs/osd Point 6. Period. > You can sell the compiled artifacts as well. Yes, of course you can sell the service of providing compiled binaries. Everyone will be annoyed if you charge for the builds of your software - but that's your prerogative. Someone else will just provide a free unofficial build (See CentOS, etc) if it's useful. Suit yourself. shrug
JeremySecond 7y ago
> On the other hand, OSS has become critical infrastructure Those for whom it is critical are not forbidden from paying for its maintenance, if they need it.

ci5er 7y ago

I think I agree with you? Way back when (not that far back, from my point of view, but longer than many denizens of this site have been alive), we used to have usenet and ftp sites and tarballs that compiled (usually) on some subset of Unixen. I liked that. You could throw up period tarballs, with Readmes (they were .txt, not .md, but close enough), and usually had instructions like ./configure; make; make install. People could yell at you on comp.graphics. Usually they didn't - and often discussions would ensue. Maybe I was young (if I ever was?), but it felt pretty zen to me at the time. More recently, I had a package - I forget what it was - I think it might have been a python package that would take PlantUML-like-syntax things and turn them into SVGs or something. I put it up on github thinking that this would be the equivalent of throwing a tarball over the wall. OMG! I was wrong. The tickets/issues/demands/complaints - not questions - were beyond belief! I've never asked for compensation for an open-sourced package - high or low quality - but I could see that the shrill demands might drive one to want to demand compensation! These days I've more-or-less retired back to throwing tar-balls to people who know me and ask me for them. I still ask for no money. I still respond to emails with questions. But I refuse to be held hostage to "the community". Serious question to Parent: Does that make me a selfish asshole?

justinjlynn 7y ago
No, not at all. You don't owe anyone anything - but please consider their demands an indicator of unmet need. Github and other platforms make it easy for users and colleagues to contact project engineers and maintainers with new demands and PRs. You also get so much more exposure and help - but it's not without downside, as you say. Of course, you're free to step up and solve their problems or ignore them. Offer consulting services if you'd like. Thank you for your code and your generosity either way you choose. But, and this is key, if you choose to ignore the issues/requests and/or only accept consulting contracts to fix them: be up front about it in your README. Turn off issues on github and put the fact that you don't accept PRs in your repo notice/description. Now, if you do that, don't be surprised if someone forks your code and picks up the maintainership. Don't try to take back your open source code. Don't complain about the other party's stewardship - a role you explicitly chose to abdicate. Don't sabotage the community. Those are pretty much the very few things that would make you a selfish asshole in my book, friend. Thank you for your code and I'm sorry other people can be real assholes sometimes - especially to people who give their hard work away to prevent others from maybe having to do the same. Fortunately, there are usually others who will step up and help maintain the project and deal with these demanding ungrateful bastards - seek them out openly, they're invaluable friends. If we're upfront and honest with each other about needing help - we're stronger together.

bcheung 7y ago

I don't understand the licensing of the parts library. I wanted to use it in my own tool I was creating and I see from the parts library LICENSE.txt: > All graphics and documentation of Fritzing are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareALike 3.0 Unported. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ for the full description. But in their FAQ they say: > However, we do not allow the use of Fritzing part graphics in other software systems at the moment. If you think we should make an exception for you, please contact us. What gives? Is it creative commons or not? If you are someone who creates a part you want it to be available in every software out there. You don't want to create the same part in Eagle and then in KiCad, and then in Fritzing, and then in 5 other ones as well. Submitting it to something that is Creative Commons has that expectation. Fritzing is effectively saying, it's "creative commons" but we're still allowed to completely control it and prevent others from using it? That's exactly the opposite of what CC says. WTF?

justinjlynn 7y ago
That kind of licensing is the toxic bullshit I'm talking about. Ignore and avoid.

rstuart4133 7y ago

> I've never understood software engineers and organisations who contribute their code to the open source and free software worlds and then think they're owed compensation for it. It's obvious isn't it? The logic goes "I need to eat" + "I develop open source software" => "I need to be paid for developing open source software". The only problem with it is the world then live in doesn't support their implied version of the "=>" operator. People fall into this trap all the time. "Men like porn" + "Men like sex" => "Porn turns men into sex addicts". "Criminals commit crime" + "Jailing criminals stops them committing crime" => "We will be better off it we spend a lot of money on keeping criminals in jail". Taking the time to understand the underlying mechanism that drives open source takes effort. Yes, it started when people scratched itches when they had nothing better to and gave away the result for free. If you have a certain mind set giving it away for free is the natural thing to do. A true idealist might try dedicating their life to it, but find it is very difficult as they have to eat. Most of us acknowledge that reality and move on. After moving on some of us found to our delight that it made business sense in the places we worked in to give away some our work for free. This wasn't because we convinced business to share our ideals at their expense. It happened because we brought open source into the business. The business then discovered it was pure (if perhaps enlightened) pragmatism to let us give away some of our work, because the business got far more back from the ecosystem than they contributed; mostly because contributing the work they were going to pay us to do anyway costs almost nothing and as a lot of other businesses are doing the same thing, it amplified that feed back effect. Combine that with copyleft licences like the GPL providing a way to keep parasites under control so we could avoid the tragedy of the commons, and business found they too can be part of a wonderful virtuous cycle. This is the mechanism that drives most of open source development today. Since open source has eaten the world I'd say it's been very successful. But nonetheless not all of us get to participate. If you didn't find such a place to work then most of your open source efforts mostly died because worshipping ideals doesn't put food on the plate. Such is life. Accept it and move on. But if you are both stubborn and idealistic it can take a while to realise you don't have a lot of choice in this. Asking people to pay for your open source software is a stop along the path to discovering your simplistic "=>" operator doesn't and will never exist in the real world, no matter how much you want it to.