2 ms·
yet, that's an entirely fair stance. The little guys, not having created the mechanism for value capture that the company has, are likely contributing to the ec
by pksebben 6y ago
yet, that's an entirely fair stance. The little guys, not having created the mechanism for value capture that the company has, are likely contributing to the ecosystem (or at least are active components of the ecosystem). the corporation, on the other hand, has ensured that they capture and process value such that they enjoy exclusive benefit from their output.
it's not unreasonable for an individual to decide that contributions to other open source developers are good, and contributions to a black hole are bad.
if you decide you don't want me to benefit from your work without profiting you, then you have to pay me for mine. if you want to play nice, then I'm willing to play nice, too.
- chii 6y agoWhich is exactly what dual licensing with (A)GPL and commercial license is. And yet, this is more rare than common.
- ganafagol 6y agoExactly. It's astonishing how little people understand this and just go post a rant about the big evil corporation not paying the little open source coder for their work. It's all in the license(s). Make one that's fine for trials and other open source hackers, but draconian for proprietary commercialization, and another one for productization so that big corp pays you. That's it. And if you don't care about the money aspect since open sourcing was never a way for you to make money anyway, then go with a single permissive license and be happy that your code gets widely used and hopefully contributed to.
- j1elo 6y agoIf that scheme of dual-licensing with (A)GPL and commercial did actually work out in reality, we probably wouldn't have the precedent of MongoDB dropping AGPL in favor of their own SSPL.