5 ms·

Open source has become yet another way for big tech companies to exploit laborers. If you are an independent developer working on an open source project without

Open source has become yet another way for big tech companies to exploit laborers. If you are an independent developer working on an open source project without a copy-left license, you are a fool.

dasil003 6y ago
Even with copyleft it's now a situation where AWS will do a cleanroom implementation of your API and neuter your market.
- dunce2020 6y ago
  Oracle might "fix" that?
brodouevencode 6y ago
The language is a bit too extreme in my view. You release OSS knowing that anyone can come and pick it up. Even if they make a dime off your sweat. Pick your license, fine, but there's no reason for the devs to get upset about it because there's no lack of information out there. That being said, companies should kick down some love to the OSS projects they use. Especially big companies for which it's just a charitable write-off anyway.
- cageface 6y ago
  At every company I've worked I've lobbied for us to make donations to open source projects we depend on. Every single time it quietly dies in legal. There must be a better way.
  - iRomain 6y ago
    OSS could use similar licensing as some SaaS where it's free for personal use or commercial use up to certain limits and then you have to pay. This would ensure developers can use it freely but at some time a company would have to either pay it or ditch it. However I see two issues with this model: - the community will shit on it like it's not real OSS - big companies will start banning the use of such licenses The other alternatives many are doing are paid support, priority issues for sponsors, paid for issues, etc.
    - rusticpenn 6y ago
      That is the AGPL (free)/Commercial(paid) dual license. Its pretty popular.
    - dalke 6y ago
      If OSS used a non-OSS license like what you suggest then of course it wouldn't be "real OSS". https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd - "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" includes "it may not restrict the program from being used in a business". "paid support" means you have to make sure your software is good enough to use and crappy enough to need support.
  - andi999 6y ago
    I am not from legal, but too me there the problem would be: you use a product, but you dont 'buy' it, you 'donate' to the guy who made it, who is also 'super nice' and fixes some stuff about the product you need. This looks like a work/service/purchase agreement in disguise. Actually you dont want that to be possible.
    - cageface 6y ago
      From what I gathered the problem is often that most corporate legal departments are overworked so small donations to open source projects are just never high priority enough to displace other tasks they have in their queue.
      - pabs3 6y ago
        Would making them large donations solve the problem there? ;)
    - dalke 6y ago
      I tried commercial FOSS development. An older version was available at no cost, the newest version cost money. Both were MIT licensed. If you were a company, and wanted to pay me, it was easy - send me a PO and you would get the source code to the newer, faster, more capable version. Nothing in that looks like a donation. I did it this way precisely because giving someone money for being "super nice" and distributing no-cost FOSS software DOES NOT FIT with the accounting mechanisms of most companies. Even with this, I was at one pro-FOSS workshop. One of the presenters described how they used my no-cost version and how great it was. (Did I know they used the software? Not until that day.) I pointed out that many FOSS projects are underfunded. Their response was that it was so hard to get their company to fund FOSS projects (along lines that cageface observed). I pointed out that it's really easy to pay for my project. They still never bought a copy or support contract. I came out of that workshop convinced that the primary reason companies like FOSS is because it's generally available at no cost. Not because it reduces long-term dependencies on external parties, not because it improves software development methodologies, and not because it's an essential liberty. But simply because of the cost.
  - VBprogrammer 6y ago
    I mentioned this elsewhere on this thread. I completely agree with the sentiment. In a "when I'm king" kind of way I thought it would be great if tech leads had a modest budget for open source contributions (with a minimal amount of oversight to assure it wasn't being funneled off to their friends account). It might also help with legal / finance to have these funds earmarked so that they only had to approve it in the beginning.
- hodgesrm 6y ago
  That actually happens more than you might think. I've worked at a couple of open source product companies in the data management field. In both cases we had deals from corporate users who wanted to ensure we would continue to maintain software they liked. The sums are not small either--I've seen them run into hundreds of thousands USD. It definitely helps keep the lights on--and also helps justify the open source model to investors and the like. (Anyone reading this who has done such a deal, y'all rock.)
generalizations 6y ago
It's not exactly exploitation...you're free to walk away at any time.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
Even with a copy-left license. Take for example Linux. It undergirds the entire Cloud technology, and social media, as well as Android. There is no way the contributors have seen anything but a minuscule portion of the value generated.
Palomides 6y ago
it sounds cynical, but before starting any code, I now ask myself "will a corporation profit from this labor?" and if so, I work on something else instead. I never have a shortage of ideas, so it's not a big deal.
- avhon1 6y ago
  I'm curious, do you mind giving an example of a software idea which is not potentially profitable?
  - ndiddy 6y ago
    Not him, but I'm currently working on an unauthorized port of an old Japanese computer game to the Sega Saturn. I imagine this has no commercial value.
MrPowers 6y ago
My open source projects have given me the opportunity to collaborate with highly motivated and smart people. They've made me well-known in my niche and have brought me great job opportunities. They depend on relatively stable APIs and don't require a lot of maintenance. Writing open source code has been a positive experience for me, even though it doesn't directly make me any money.
Guthur 6y ago
This is so moronic is not even funny. It was a reaction against proprietary closed source software that restricted your rights as a user. To avoid this unilateral license control GPL and it's derivatives were created, but so many open source maintainers refused to use it instead using licenses that were essentially unilateral in the other direction. And so frankly they're the architects of this, not "big evil corp".

Open source has become yet another way for big tech companies to exploit laborers. If you are an independent developer working on an open source project without a copy-left license, you are a fool.

dasil003 6y ago

Even with copyleft it's now a situation where AWS will do a cleanroom implementation of your API and neuter your market.

dunce2020 6y ago
Oracle might "fix" that?

brodouevencode 6y ago

The language is a bit too extreme in my view. You release OSS knowing that anyone can come and pick it up. Even if they make a dime off your sweat. Pick your license, fine, but there's no reason for the devs to get upset about it because there's no lack of information out there. That being said, companies should kick down some love to the OSS projects they use. Especially big companies for which it's just a charitable write-off anyway.

cageface 6y ago
At every company I've worked I've lobbied for us to make donations to open source projects we depend on. Every single time it quietly dies in legal. There must be a better way.
- iRomain 6y ago
  OSS could use similar licensing as some SaaS where it's free for personal use or commercial use up to certain limits and then you have to pay. This would ensure developers can use it freely but at some time a company would have to either pay it or ditch it. However I see two issues with this model: - the community will shit on it like it's not real OSS - big companies will start banning the use of such licenses The other alternatives many are doing are paid support, priority issues for sponsors, paid for issues, etc.
  - rusticpenn 6y ago
    That is the AGPL (free)/Commercial(paid) dual license. Its pretty popular.
  - dalke 6y ago
    If OSS used a non-OSS license like what you suggest then of course it wouldn't be "real OSS". https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd - "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" includes "it may not restrict the program from being used in a business". "paid support" means you have to make sure your software is good enough to use and crappy enough to need support.
- andi999 6y ago
  I am not from legal, but too me there the problem would be: you use a product, but you dont 'buy' it, you 'donate' to the guy who made it, who is also 'super nice' and fixes some stuff about the product you need. This looks like a work/service/purchase agreement in disguise. Actually you dont want that to be possible.
  - cageface 6y ago
    From what I gathered the problem is often that most corporate legal departments are overworked so small donations to open source projects are just never high priority enough to displace other tasks they have in their queue.
    - pabs3 6y ago
      Would making them large donations solve the problem there? ;)
  - dalke 6y ago
    I tried commercial FOSS development. An older version was available at no cost, the newest version cost money. Both were MIT licensed. If you were a company, and wanted to pay me, it was easy - send me a PO and you would get the source code to the newer, faster, more capable version. Nothing in that looks like a donation. I did it this way precisely because giving someone money for being "super nice" and distributing no-cost FOSS software DOES NOT FIT with the accounting mechanisms of most companies. Even with this, I was at one pro-FOSS workshop. One of the presenters described how they used my no-cost version and how great it was. (Did I know they used the software? Not until that day.) I pointed out that many FOSS projects are underfunded. Their response was that it was so hard to get their company to fund FOSS projects (along lines that cageface observed). I pointed out that it's really easy to pay for my project. They still never bought a copy or support contract. I came out of that workshop convinced that the primary reason companies like FOSS is because it's generally available at no cost. Not because it reduces long-term dependencies on external parties, not because it improves software development methodologies, and not because it's an essential liberty. But simply because of the cost.
- VBprogrammer 6y ago
  I mentioned this elsewhere on this thread. I completely agree with the sentiment. In a "when I'm king" kind of way I thought it would be great if tech leads had a modest budget for open source contributions (with a minimal amount of oversight to assure it wasn't being funneled off to their friends account). It might also help with legal / finance to have these funds earmarked so that they only had to approve it in the beginning.
hodgesrm 6y ago
That actually happens more than you might think. I've worked at a couple of open source product companies in the data management field. In both cases we had deals from corporate users who wanted to ensure we would continue to maintain software they liked. The sums are not small either--I've seen them run into hundreds of thousands USD. It definitely helps keep the lights on--and also helps justify the open source model to investors and the like. (Anyone reading this who has done such a deal, y'all rock.)

generalizations 6y ago

It's not exactly exploitation...you're free to walk away at any time.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

Even with a copy-left license. Take for example Linux. It undergirds the entire Cloud technology, and social media, as well as Android. There is no way the contributors have seen anything but a minuscule portion of the value generated.

Palomides 6y ago

it sounds cynical, but before starting any code, I now ask myself "will a corporation profit from this labor?" and if so, I work on something else instead. I never have a shortage of ideas, so it's not a big deal.

avhon1 6y ago
I'm curious, do you mind giving an example of a software idea which is not potentially profitable?
- ndiddy 6y ago
  Not him, but I'm currently working on an unauthorized port of an old Japanese computer game to the Sega Saturn. I imagine this has no commercial value.

MrPowers 6y ago

My open source projects have given me the opportunity to collaborate with highly motivated and smart people. They've made me well-known in my niche and have brought me great job opportunities. They depend on relatively stable APIs and don't require a lot of maintenance. Writing open source code has been a positive experience for me, even though it doesn't directly make me any money.

Guthur 6y ago

This is so moronic is not even funny. It was a reaction against proprietary closed source software that restricted your rights as a user. To avoid this unilateral license control GPL and it's derivatives were created, but so many open source maintainers refused to use it instead using licenses that were essentially unilateral in the other direction. And so frankly they're the architects of this, not "big evil corp".