5 ms·

> Now that is not a very good thing I am still waiting for someone to explain why open-source software is harmed by people using it, if they don't contribute b

by tus88 7y ago

> Now that is not a very good thing I am still waiting for someone to explain why open-source software is harmed by people using it, if they don't contribute back.

cwyers 7y ago
So, on one hand, it's not a stone soup situation in the sense that it's not like there's any less soup if Google comes and takes all the soup they can eat. On the other hand, open source software only survives when _someone_ contributes needed maintenance, bug fixes, security patches and features. If you don't find a way to incentivize people to contribute, the project can fail. Incentivizing people who are already using your code and have large sacks of cash seems like the easiest place to start.
blihp 7y ago
To many developers, the main reason they contribute to open source software is for the benefit of leveraging each others work. If one is the sole author due to lack of contributions, from that perspective there is no value to the developer in providing it as open source. The problem is compounded if they look around and see companies profiting off of their work and neither contributing fixes/improvements back nor funding the developer(s) who do. So how is it harmed? By exactly the situation playing out with FUSE: the person who has been maintaining it has been seeing no benefit financial or otherwise and decides to take his ball (the source code) home as he has every right to do. I suspect if he doesn't see some corporate sponsorship soon he may very well decide to stop releasing future updates entirely.
- jagged-chisel 7y ago
  > To many developers, the main reason they contribute to open source software is for the benefit of leveraging each others work. Then these developers need to understand copyright and licensing, and choose a license that enforces that motive. If you release under BSD, you're not encouraging companies with a profit motive to contribute back.
laughinghan 7y ago
Fleischer isn't harmed by Google using it, in the same sense that Google isn't harmed by him releasing osxfuse 3.10 under a proprietary license instead of BSD. For the community it's certainly a pity, but I guess if you consider open source projects to be "default dead", not contributing to keeping it alive isn't the same thing as harming a project community.

by tus88 7y ago

> Now that is not a very good thing I am still waiting for someone to explain why open-source software is harmed by people using it, if they don't contribute back.

cwyers 7y ago

So, on one hand, it's not a stone soup situation in the sense that it's not like there's any less soup if Google comes and takes all the soup they can eat. On the other hand, open source software only survives when _someone_ contributes needed maintenance, bug fixes, security patches and features. If you don't find a way to incentivize people to contribute, the project can fail. Incentivizing people who are already using your code and have large sacks of cash seems like the easiest place to start.

blihp 7y ago

To many developers, the main reason they contribute to open source software is for the benefit of leveraging each others work. If one is the sole author due to lack of contributions, from that perspective there is no value to the developer in providing it as open source. The problem is compounded if they look around and see companies profiting off of their work and neither contributing fixes/improvements back nor funding the developer(s) who do. So how is it harmed? By exactly the situation playing out with FUSE: the person who has been maintaining it has been seeing no benefit financial or otherwise and decides to take his ball (the source code) home as he has every right to do. I suspect if he doesn't see some corporate sponsorship soon he may very well decide to stop releasing future updates entirely.

jagged-chisel 7y ago
> To many developers, the main reason they contribute to open source software is for the benefit of leveraging each others work. Then these developers need to understand copyright and licensing, and choose a license that enforces that motive. If you release under BSD, you're not encouraging companies with a profit motive to contribute back.

laughinghan 7y ago

Fleischer isn't harmed by Google using it, in the same sense that Google isn't harmed by him releasing osxfuse 3.10 under a proprietary license instead of BSD. For the community it's certainly a pity, but I guess if you consider open source projects to be "default dead", not contributing to keeping it alive isn't the same thing as harming a project community.