4 ms·

It seems like you're arguing that people should get both the good will of having an open source license and the profits of a closed source license. Which comes

It seems like you're arguing that people should get both the good will of having an open source license and the profits of a closed source license. Which comes across as disingenuous.

oauea 6y ago
No, it's just good sense. If you're adopting an open source project then you clearly think the project has merit. So the people who created this project should be considered for maintaining the company fork, since they clearly know what they're doing.
- geodel 6y ago
  But other companies, individuals may want to go in different direction taking current code as base. This is not a good reason to hire original author.
- kortilla 6y ago
  That doesn’t follow. There have been many projects that I’ve seen forked internally because the original author didn’t know how to write tests, maintain performance, etc. Open source projects are often very poorly maintained so being the steward of one that’s interesting does not actually qualify you to productize it for a company.
ManBlanket 6y ago
Does it not muddy the waters when an open source project is outright appropriated as a paid service?
- bhhaskin 6y ago
  Not really. There are a lot of open source licenses. If you care about that sort of thing then choose a license that doesn't allow it for commerical use.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    There is no open source license [1] that prohibits commercial use. [1] Specifically, no OSI-approved open source license but that's what most people equate with "open source license."
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      Don't CC-NC licenses count?
      - ghaff 6y ago
        No. They're not OSI-approved licenses. It may also be worth noting that Creative Commons put a lot of effort into trying to define noncommercial over time and wasn't able to come up with a satisfactory answer. Obviously there are cases that are clearly commercial but many others are far less clear. This was being debated over a decade ago and nothing has really changed: https://www.cnet.com/news/does-the-noncommercial-creative-commons-license-make-sense/ https://www.cnet.com/news/does-the-noncommercial-creative-co... (A legit question. Have an upvote.)
        pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        It's not my field, but non-commercial has been - to my knowledge - addressed multiple times in USA copyright caselaw. I can't see why that definition wouldn't apply. FWIW all the supposed complex questions they ask are clear cut. Advertising on a website makes it commercial, using works in a presentation at work makes it commercial, etc., they're all clearly commercial. A harder question might be "what if I'm not charging and am giving files away" that becomes commercial if it substantially inhibits commercial activities, for example (according to copyright caselaw I've read). But that doesn't matter that much, was the guy making $10 a month from adsense using your work commercially (legally, yes): it doesn't matter, why bother to sue them (actual damages is going to be tiny). NC is for the company advertising with your work, or ripping off your work, etc.. NC doesn't seem that hard to define but in any situation where it would be worth you suing for tortuous infringement then it's going to be very clear -- unless someone made a lot of money, or you lost a lot of money, then ...
luhn 6y ago
I think OS creators should reap some of the rewards of their software. Popular OS projects have provided incredible value to the industry. It's only fair that some of that value trickles down. Sometimes it does (sponsorships, job offers, etc.), but oftentimes it doesn't. Obviously there's no rule enforcing that creators get their fair share, and nature of open source means there could never be such a rule. A blessing and a curse, I suppose.
ardy42 6y ago
>> I really wish, that when COs like Amazon decided to productize a thing they either offered the core developer(s) enough $ to work on it full time (if they wanted) or a job to do that with a guarantee that as long as it was a product, and they wanted to work on it, they'd be allowed to continue. > It seems like you're arguing that people should get both the good will of having an open source license and the profits of a closed source license. Which comes across as disingenuous. It isn't. Linus Torvalds and all kinds of other people are paid to work on the Linux kernel, sort of like how the op suggests, and if that hadn't happened Linux would probably be a shadow of what it is now. The alternative is to have some guy slave away for another's profit, and eventually burn out (which happens to tons of open source developers).
notatoad 6y ago
not just the profits of a closed-source licence, but far beyond the profits of a closed-source licence. an amazon developer salary is well into the six figures annually, for presumably multiple years, which is easily more in one year than it would cost to outright acquire this product.

It seems like you're arguing that people should get both the good will of having an open source license and the profits of a closed source license. Which comes across as disingenuous.

oauea 6y ago

No, it's just good sense. If you're adopting an open source project then you clearly think the project has merit. So the people who created this project should be considered for maintaining the company fork, since they clearly know what they're doing.

geodel 6y ago
But other companies, individuals may want to go in different direction taking current code as base. This is not a good reason to hire original author.
kortilla 6y ago
That doesn’t follow. There have been many projects that I’ve seen forked internally because the original author didn’t know how to write tests, maintain performance, etc. Open source projects are often very poorly maintained so being the steward of one that’s interesting does not actually qualify you to productize it for a company.

ManBlanket 6y ago

Does it not muddy the waters when an open source project is outright appropriated as a paid service?

bhhaskin 6y ago
Not really. There are a lot of open source licenses. If you care about that sort of thing then choose a license that doesn't allow it for commerical use.
- ghaff 6y ago
  There is no open source license [1] that prohibits commercial use. [1] Specifically, no OSI-approved open source license but that's what most people equate with "open source license."
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    Don't CC-NC licenses count?
    - ghaff 6y ago
      No. They're not OSI-approved licenses. It may also be worth noting that Creative Commons put a lot of effort into trying to define noncommercial over time and wasn't able to come up with a satisfactory answer. Obviously there are cases that are clearly commercial but many others are far less clear. This was being debated over a decade ago and nothing has really changed: https://www.cnet.com/news/does-the-noncommercial-creative-commons-license-make-sense/ https://www.cnet.com/news/does-the-noncommercial-creative-co... (A legit question. Have an upvote.)
      - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        It's not my field, but non-commercial has been - to my knowledge - addressed multiple times in USA copyright caselaw. I can't see why that definition wouldn't apply. FWIW all the supposed complex questions they ask are clear cut. Advertising on a website makes it commercial, using works in a presentation at work makes it commercial, etc., they're all clearly commercial. A harder question might be "what if I'm not charging and am giving files away" that becomes commercial if it substantially inhibits commercial activities, for example (according to copyright caselaw I've read). But that doesn't matter that much, was the guy making $10 a month from adsense using your work commercially (legally, yes): it doesn't matter, why bother to sue them (actual damages is going to be tiny). NC is for the company advertising with your work, or ripping off your work, etc.. NC doesn't seem that hard to define but in any situation where it would be worth you suing for tortuous infringement then it's going to be very clear -- unless someone made a lot of money, or you lost a lot of money, then ...

luhn 6y ago

I think OS creators should reap some of the rewards of their software. Popular OS projects have provided incredible value to the industry. It's only fair that some of that value trickles down. Sometimes it does (sponsorships, job offers, etc.), but oftentimes it doesn't. Obviously there's no rule enforcing that creators get their fair share, and nature of open source means there could never be such a rule. A blessing and a curse, I suppose.

ardy42 6y ago

>> I really wish, that when COs like Amazon decided to productize a thing they either offered the core developer(s) enough $ to work on it full time (if they wanted) or a job to do that with a guarantee that as long as it was a product, and they wanted to work on it, they'd be allowed to continue. > It seems like you're arguing that people should get both the good will of having an open source license and the profits of a closed source license. Which comes across as disingenuous. It isn't. Linus Torvalds and all kinds of other people are paid to work on the Linux kernel, sort of like how the op suggests, and if that hadn't happened Linux would probably be a shadow of what it is now. The alternative is to have some guy slave away for another's profit, and eventually burn out (which happens to tons of open source developers).

notatoad 6y ago

not just the profits of a closed-source licence, but far beyond the profits of a closed-source licence. an amazon developer salary is well into the six figures annually, for presumably multiple years, which is easily more in one year than it would cost to outright acquire this product.