5 ms·

> Maybe blindly adopting permissive open source licenses to invite more corporate ownership isn't the right answer. What's the question exactly? Sustainable F

> Maybe blindly adopting permissive open source licenses to invite more corporate ownership isn't the right answer. What's the question exactly? Sustainable FOSS development? Earning nothing while working on a FOSS project that has no way to ever make a developer salary because it can't be used by the people with the money, due to the copyleft license does not seem to be the "right answer" either.

geerlingguy 6y ago
It seems like in some sense, there's no right answer. The hard thing here is truly free / open source software relies on generosity. And the more generosity, the more sustainable it is (on behalf of the developer(s), the corporations using it, etc.). Generosity is not a winning strategy in corporate board rooms, though.
- Jeff_Brown 6y ago
  Sometimes generosity isn't needed. If a project (including the language it's written in) is simple* enough, casual users can add features they want for themselves. But for complex projects those barriers will probably always be quite high. * "Simple" is a slippery concept. I find hacking Haskell easier than hacking Python, because the type signatures and other features make it much easier to see what's going on with a minimum of investigative work. But difficulty is a big part of Haskell's reputation, and ease a big part of Python's.
- coldpie 6y ago
  > The hard thing here is truly free / open source software relies on generosity. (I make a living working on an open source project.) I don't agree. The view of the value of software is just different. The software itself is valueless. This is true of all software: bits are free to copy. What is valuable is the work put into making it. In other words, you get paid for making something, not for having made something. If a company wants some feature implemented in some piece of OSS, they can go find a dev to pay to do it, and contribute it back to the world. There's no generosity there, it's just an accurate reflection of where value is actually generated in the software world, instead of the broken view that proprietary software tries to force. Where it starts to get tricky is kind of a tragedy of the commons situation: if you wait long enough, then maybe someone else will pay to implement the feature, but if everyone does this, then the feature will never exist.
  - jsdwarf 6y ago
    Agree. In the end commercial and open source software aren't that different: the more dollars you put into it, the more say you have on the roadmap.
tw04 6y ago
I'd argue short term there is no good answer. Long term I think the story changes quickly. I still can't shake the idea that we as a human race are going to have to adopt a universal basic income of some sort. As we automate more and more things we're eventually going to get to the point that there are not enough jobs for humans to do unless we intentionally stop automating some industries. Assuming we can find a way to get to a UBI, programming becomes just another art. If you already have your basic needs met (housing/food/education/transportation) and have the choice to either pursue an art, or pursue a career making more money, people will have options. I have no doubt there are a lot of people that will value the freedom to decide what they want to do every day of their life over making more money in the rat race, and some of them will spend that time programming/donating their time to FOSS projects. Between now and then, your guess is as good as mine.
sidlls 6y ago
I’m not sure permitting enterprises to pick and choose which developers on an open source project get paid (as by hiring them or funding a salaried foundation staff) is a good answer to this problem. In fact I’m pretty sure it has contributed to the rise of the celebrity/“influencer” dev who uses open source as a vehicle for self promotion rather than a means to improve software.
- serial_dev 6y ago
  I don't see anything bad with the "celebrity" devs using open-source for their own "selfish" purposes. For the most part they do improve software, and help coding get more popular. Their work can help those devs go independent in some shape or form (or the least, it helps them get their next job more easily or put them in a stronger negotiating position). The fact that they do a far bit of self-promotion should not be hold against them, in the end we are all working to achieve something in life, and for some, a necessary ingredient is some self-promotion through open-source.
  - sidlls 6y ago
    I’m gonna say something controversial: the vast, vast majority of open source software is garbage. Partly that is due to the rise of developers just writing slop to promote themselves with. The existence of “Celebrity” devs isn’t necessarily a problem, but the culture that has evolved over the last few years seems more focused on the celebrity part than the dev part.

geerlingguy 6y ago

It seems like in some sense, there's no right answer. The hard thing here is truly free / open source software relies on generosity. And the more generosity, the more sustainable it is (on behalf of the developer(s), the corporations using it, etc.). Generosity is not a winning strategy in corporate board rooms, though.

Jeff_Brown 6y ago
Sometimes generosity isn't needed. If a project (including the language it's written in) is simple* enough, casual users can add features they want for themselves. But for complex projects those barriers will probably always be quite high. * "Simple" is a slippery concept. I find hacking Haskell easier than hacking Python, because the type signatures and other features make it much easier to see what's going on with a minimum of investigative work. But difficulty is a big part of Haskell's reputation, and ease a big part of Python's.
coldpie 6y ago
> The hard thing here is truly free / open source software relies on generosity. (I make a living working on an open source project.) I don't agree. The view of the value of software is just different. The software itself is valueless. This is true of all software: bits are free to copy. What is valuable is the work put into making it. In other words, you get paid for making something, not for having made something. If a company wants some feature implemented in some piece of OSS, they can go find a dev to pay to do it, and contribute it back to the world. There's no generosity there, it's just an accurate reflection of where value is actually generated in the software world, instead of the broken view that proprietary software tries to force. Where it starts to get tricky is kind of a tragedy of the commons situation: if you wait long enough, then maybe someone else will pay to implement the feature, but if everyone does this, then the feature will never exist.
- jsdwarf 6y ago
  Agree. In the end commercial and open source software aren't that different: the more dollars you put into it, the more say you have on the roadmap.

tw04 6y ago

I'd argue short term there is no good answer. Long term I think the story changes quickly. I still can't shake the idea that we as a human race are going to have to adopt a universal basic income of some sort. As we automate more and more things we're eventually going to get to the point that there are not enough jobs for humans to do unless we intentionally stop automating some industries. Assuming we can find a way to get to a UBI, programming becomes just another art. If you already have your basic needs met (housing/food/education/transportation) and have the choice to either pursue an art, or pursue a career making more money, people will have options. I have no doubt there are a lot of people that will value the freedom to decide what they want to do every day of their life over making more money in the rat race, and some of them will spend that time programming/donating their time to FOSS projects. Between now and then, your guess is as good as mine.

sidlls 6y ago

I’m not sure permitting enterprises to pick and choose which developers on an open source project get paid (as by hiring them or funding a salaried foundation staff) is a good answer to this problem. In fact I’m pretty sure it has contributed to the rise of the celebrity/“influencer” dev who uses open source as a vehicle for self promotion rather than a means to improve software.

serial_dev 6y ago
I don't see anything bad with the "celebrity" devs using open-source for their own "selfish" purposes. For the most part they do improve software, and help coding get more popular. Their work can help those devs go independent in some shape or form (or the least, it helps them get their next job more easily or put them in a stronger negotiating position). The fact that they do a far bit of self-promotion should not be hold against them, in the end we are all working to achieve something in life, and for some, a necessary ingredient is some self-promotion through open-source.
- sidlls 6y ago
  I’m gonna say something controversial: the vast, vast majority of open source software is garbage. Partly that is due to the rise of developers just writing slop to promote themselves with. The existence of “Celebrity” devs isn’t necessarily a problem, but the culture that has evolved over the last few years seems more focused on the celebrity part than the dev part.