4 ms·
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
by 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 agoSee 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?
- hnedeotes 6y agoThe only one being patronising is you? How would this, hypothetical vapourware distribution system, steal your, or anyone, choice of doing whatever you want with your code? I think that if you read this and that's your conclusion it would seem that the only one assuming something would be you? You can just scroll up and read my post again. It seems you're the one saying that others shouldn't have the choice of doing that? What would it matter to you if someone decided to do that for their own packages. How would that be different from using GPL on their own volition?