3 ms·

Yes, imagining what I was saying it would be mandatory if your company was making a profit while using software that agreed to this. The difference would be if

Yes, imagining what I was saying it would be mandatory if your company was making a profit while using software that agreed to this. The difference would be if you're setting up a blog to share your permaculture posts, you wouldn't need to pay, or something like that. If you as a software author didn't want you could always put that the cost to use your package was $0?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
HeyLaughingBoy 6y ago
What if the company was losing money? What if the permaculture blog was monetized by AdSense or something else?
- temac 6y ago
  There is not even a "what if" to apply; it would be fundamentally contrary to Open Source and Free Software (violates freedom 0) And I've nothing against people who want to invent new models. Just: this can't apply to the whole current Open Source / Free Software corpus and ecosystem. And this new model will never be able to mix. Payed license does not need to be created anyway. This already widely exist and this is just proprietary software. And among proprietary software, there are also licenses that are incompatible between each others. And proprietary licenses that don't require monetary paiement from individuals. So does creating new proprietary licenses that would be obviously incompatible with Free Software licenses, and probably incompatible with most other proprietary licenses, would achieve anything interesting? I doubt it.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 6y ago
    You've summed up the problem I have with OP's arguments. OSS already has a number of available licenses of varying levels of freedom that lets the creator decide how their creation should be used. This entire discussion reads like "you developers are idiots who don't realize you're being taken advantage of." Whenever someone starts their argument with the (implicit or explicit) assumption that they are smarter than everyone else, my experience tells me that there's a hidden agenda in there somewhere. In this case it seems to be as trite as "corporations bad, people good" which, not to put too fine a point on it, is bullshit.
    - hnedeotes 6y ago
      Yeah, the illuminati agenda.
- hnedeotes 6y ago
  Yeah the word profit was badly used. We could imagine it would be a regular cost and just like you wouldn't be able to forfeit paying for printer paper because you're not turning a profit you wouldn't either in this case. The AdSense and other forms of monetisation would be indeed trickier, as well as more complex usage patterns. Like if a business spins up a lot of machines, how would that go, perhaps charging for each machine the same would be too expensive. But charging just once would be unfair. Perhaps that could be somehow split/incorporated into what is charged to the end user, where it would just be a cost of running the service, the providers would do it on their end. Perhaps the licensing would be flexible, so you paid for some cloud provider they did the payment and as part of the invoice you would have this bill of usage as well. I would also imagine that no one would try to prosecute a guy using a blog, at the same time if they're doing adsense that blog/domain would be registered. It's not like I've spent more than the time it took me to write that thinking about it. If it was to work I also doubt it would be something that would come out right at the first iteration(s). It was more like, "wouldn't it be great if we had some sort of automatic distribution of credit that would somehow flow directly back to the source" but at the same time keeping the spirit of open source. It could possibly also align further, in a symbiotic way, service providers and open source as better software would mean lower costs, better integration, more time for tooling, etc. Or it could work the opposite and give rise to a gamed ecosystem.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 6y ago
    See my response to /u/temac below. I think the entire problem with your argument is that you're trying to decide what someone should do with their work. If I decide to spend thousands of hours writing software (or building a boat for that matter) and give it away for someone to make a profit with, that should be entirely my decision. The entire discussion is so patronizing I'm having trouble believing that I'm reading this. People aren't stupid: don't assume you know what's good for them better than they do. We all have our various motivations whether or not they make sense to someone else on the outside. > "wouldn't it be great if we had some sort of automatic distribution of credit that would somehow flow directly back to the source" You mean like GPL2?
    - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

HeyLaughingBoy 6y ago

What if the company was losing money? What if the permaculture blog was monetized by AdSense or something else?

temac 6y ago
There is not even a "what if" to apply; it would be fundamentally contrary to Open Source and Free Software (violates freedom 0) And I've nothing against people who want to invent new models. Just: this can't apply to the whole current Open Source / Free Software corpus and ecosystem. And this new model will never be able to mix. Payed license does not need to be created anyway. This already widely exist and this is just proprietary software. And among proprietary software, there are also licenses that are incompatible between each others. And proprietary licenses that don't require monetary paiement from individuals. So does creating new proprietary licenses that would be obviously incompatible with Free Software licenses, and probably incompatible with most other proprietary licenses, would achieve anything interesting? I doubt it.
- HeyLaughingBoy 6y ago
  You've summed up the problem I have with OP's arguments. OSS already has a number of available licenses of varying levels of freedom that lets the creator decide how their creation should be used. This entire discussion reads like "you developers are idiots who don't realize you're being taken advantage of." Whenever someone starts their argument with the (implicit or explicit) assumption that they are smarter than everyone else, my experience tells me that there's a hidden agenda in there somewhere. In this case it seems to be as trite as "corporations bad, people good" which, not to put too fine a point on it, is bullshit.
  - hnedeotes 6y ago
    Yeah, the illuminati agenda.
hnedeotes 6y ago
Yeah the word profit was badly used. We could imagine it would be a regular cost and just like you wouldn't be able to forfeit paying for printer paper because you're not turning a profit you wouldn't either in this case. The AdSense and other forms of monetisation would be indeed trickier, as well as more complex usage patterns. Like if a business spins up a lot of machines, how would that go, perhaps charging for each machine the same would be too expensive. But charging just once would be unfair. Perhaps that could be somehow split/incorporated into what is charged to the end user, where it would just be a cost of running the service, the providers would do it on their end. Perhaps the licensing would be flexible, so you paid for some cloud provider they did the payment and as part of the invoice you would have this bill of usage as well. I would also imagine that no one would try to prosecute a guy using a blog, at the same time if they're doing adsense that blog/domain would be registered. It's not like I've spent more than the time it took me to write that thinking about it. If it was to work I also doubt it would be something that would come out right at the first iteration(s). It was more like, "wouldn't it be great if we had some sort of automatic distribution of credit that would somehow flow directly back to the source" but at the same time keeping the spirit of open source. It could possibly also align further, in a symbiotic way, service providers and open source as better software would mean lower costs, better integration, more time for tooling, etc. Or it could work the opposite and give rise to a gamed ecosystem.
- HeyLaughingBoy 6y ago
  See my response to /u/temac below. I think the entire problem with your argument is that you're trying to decide what someone should do with their work. If I decide to spend thousands of hours writing software (or building a boat for that matter) and give it away for someone to make a profit with, that should be entirely my decision. The entire discussion is so patronizing I'm having trouble believing that I'm reading this. People aren't stupid: don't assume you know what's good for them better than they do. We all have our various motivations whether or not they make sense to someone else on the outside. > "wouldn't it be great if we had some sort of automatic distribution of credit that would somehow flow directly back to the source" You mean like GPL2?
  - 6y ago