4 ms·

That's the dark side of open source. Companies think these projects grow on trees and they use them without paying anything. We need law changes to ensure that

That's the dark side of open source. Companies think these projects grow on trees and they use them without paying anything. We need law changes to ensure that open source can be sustainable and companies pay the fair share of revenue they make by using it.

vbezhenar 5y ago
How do you estimate a share? What's the share of libc in Google business? What's the share of openssl? What's the share of ncurses?
- progx 5y ago
  libc used in Android. openssl -> view boringSSL - BoringSSL is a fork of OpenSSL that is designed to meet Google's needs Nobody says that one company has to support every project and google supports many open source projects.
  - ivanbakel 5y ago
    But how would you estimate the contribution that libc has to Android? Is libc entitled to 10% of Android's revenue? 20%? 100%, since it is a vital component? This is what the GP was asking.
    - progx 5y ago
      Only google can answer that. But i think we can not say one lib make x%, it are all the libs and tools that are necessary. We don't now what e.g. google search uses under the hood, but all are needed so google can make only $1.
ulzeraj 5y ago
> We need law changes to ensure that open source can be sustainable and companies pay the fair share of revenue they make by using it. We don't need more laws. There is something called a License Agreement. However if you publish your stuff on GPL and other permissive licenses you can't really complain about Amazon, Google and Microsoft making millions on your code while you beg for donations on your Github page.
- muyuu 5y ago
  not sure why are you being downvoted, you have accurately described the incentive structure leading to these situations
- fsflover 5y ago
  > We don't need more laws. There is something called a License Agreement. We just need UBI.
  - nlitened 5y ago
    How would UBI help software developers pay for their libraries? They are already among the most highly paid professionals.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      People who enjoy doing open-source will be able to dedicate more time to their (very useful) hobby.
  - ttt0 5y ago
    Why UBI? I don't want any money, I have a job.
krapp 5y ago
You don't own the open source software you write, so you don't have the right to make demands of its users beyond what the license stipulates. That companies can make billions with your software and not owe you so much as a cup of coffee is not the dark side of open source, it's an expression of the same freedom that allows you to fork and reuse any FOSS software under the same terms. If you want to require payment from anyone who uses your software, use a proprietary license and charge money. The "fair share of revenue" in free for free and open source software is correctly "zero."
- ans123 5y ago
  Please stop the misinformation: Open source authors do own their IP, but are altruistic enough to license it to others. In the long term, altruism only works if there aren't too many leeches. Up to 2010, OSS authors at least got recognition, could stay aloof and in general weren't little corporate bitches. Now, this has changed, so there is no longer any point of writing OSS for free. The corporations have won their long term game, using the freedom propaganda until they owned most of it.
  - muyuu 5y ago
    once you distribute your code under a permissive licence, you typically don't get to undo that surrender of control over your work in that sense ownership is relative, for better or worse writing OSS will always make sense, for certain kinds of projects and perhaps without expecting much compensation fo it most of the time
  - krapp 5y ago
    >Open source authors do own their IP, but are altruistic enough to license it to others. And when they do, they give up many of those rights in the process. At the very least they give up any right to tell anyone else what they can or can't do with "their" code. The entire premise of FOSS is that software belongs to the community, not to authors. It is fundamentally collectivist, anti-ownership and anti-capitalist at its core, and only recognizes concepts like IP and copyright out of legal necessity. >Now, this has changed, so there is no longer any point of writing OSS for free. The only thing that's changed is that a new generation of open source developers have lost the plot now that software has become a billion dollar business and suddenly they want to get paid for work they voluntarily gave away for free. The point has never been compensation. Again, if programmers want to get paid, they can use a proprietary license, or write code for a corporation and get a paycheck. Or get a second job. Otherwise the complaints from people who likely have never contributed so much as a dime or a single PR for any of the FOSS code they use, and who chose the FOSS path out of a belief in its moral superiority to the capitalist incentives of proprietary software, are starting to get tedious.
antran22 5y ago
The point of open source is people can use it freely. A better project, which hits the right spots will naturally attract financial and technical support, both from the companies and the community. It is really just a free market, where the best projects survive.
- gbmark 5y ago
  Financial support is pretty arbitrary and not related to quality, user numbers or importance of the software. OpenSSL has only recently received support despite powering all the Internet infrastructure for decades. Xorg, xterm etc. have received very little or nothing. Same for most Unix system tools. Projects that receive the most are "open" source corporate vanity projects that are also used for bait-and-switch hiring.
  - thevagrant 5y ago
    It's almost like open-source needs a micropayments solution. If every download cost a tiny amount, could it add up to pay some maintainers full time?
- intricatedetail 5y ago
  _people_ not big corporations that make billions, don't pay tax and don't share revenue made using the open source software. Personal use should be free but gravy train for corporations must end.
muyuu 5y ago
I was onboard until you suggested law changes

vbezhenar 5y ago

How do you estimate a share? What's the share of libc in Google business? What's the share of openssl? What's the share of ncurses?

progx 5y ago
libc used in Android. openssl -> view boringSSL - BoringSSL is a fork of OpenSSL that is designed to meet Google's needs Nobody says that one company has to support every project and google supports many open source projects.
- ivanbakel 5y ago
  But how would you estimate the contribution that libc has to Android? Is libc entitled to 10% of Android's revenue? 20%? 100%, since it is a vital component? This is what the GP was asking.
  - progx 5y ago
    Only google can answer that. But i think we can not say one lib make x%, it are all the libs and tools that are necessary. We don't now what e.g. google search uses under the hood, but all are needed so google can make only $1.

ulzeraj 5y ago

> We need law changes to ensure that open source can be sustainable and companies pay the fair share of revenue they make by using it. We don't need more laws. There is something called a License Agreement. However if you publish your stuff on GPL and other permissive licenses you can't really complain about Amazon, Google and Microsoft making millions on your code while you beg for donations on your Github page.

muyuu 5y ago
not sure why are you being downvoted, you have accurately described the incentive structure leading to these situations
fsflover 5y ago
> We don't need more laws. There is something called a License Agreement. We just need UBI.
- nlitened 5y ago
  How would UBI help software developers pay for their libraries? They are already among the most highly paid professionals.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    People who enjoy doing open-source will be able to dedicate more time to their (very useful) hobby.
- ttt0 5y ago
  Why UBI? I don't want any money, I have a job.

krapp 5y ago

You don't own the open source software you write, so you don't have the right to make demands of its users beyond what the license stipulates. That companies can make billions with your software and not owe you so much as a cup of coffee is not the dark side of open source, it's an expression of the same freedom that allows you to fork and reuse any FOSS software under the same terms. If you want to require payment from anyone who uses your software, use a proprietary license and charge money. The "fair share of revenue" in free for free and open source software is correctly "zero."

ans123 5y ago
Please stop the misinformation: Open source authors do own their IP, but are altruistic enough to license it to others. In the long term, altruism only works if there aren't too many leeches. Up to 2010, OSS authors at least got recognition, could stay aloof and in general weren't little corporate bitches. Now, this has changed, so there is no longer any point of writing OSS for free. The corporations have won their long term game, using the freedom propaganda until they owned most of it.
- muyuu 5y ago
  once you distribute your code under a permissive licence, you typically don't get to undo that surrender of control over your work in that sense ownership is relative, for better or worse writing OSS will always make sense, for certain kinds of projects and perhaps without expecting much compensation fo it most of the time
- krapp 5y ago
  >Open source authors do own their IP, but are altruistic enough to license it to others. And when they do, they give up many of those rights in the process. At the very least they give up any right to tell anyone else what they can or can't do with "their" code. The entire premise of FOSS is that software belongs to the community, not to authors. It is fundamentally collectivist, anti-ownership and anti-capitalist at its core, and only recognizes concepts like IP and copyright out of legal necessity. >Now, this has changed, so there is no longer any point of writing OSS for free. The only thing that's changed is that a new generation of open source developers have lost the plot now that software has become a billion dollar business and suddenly they want to get paid for work they voluntarily gave away for free. The point has never been compensation. Again, if programmers want to get paid, they can use a proprietary license, or write code for a corporation and get a paycheck. Or get a second job. Otherwise the complaints from people who likely have never contributed so much as a dime or a single PR for any of the FOSS code they use, and who chose the FOSS path out of a belief in its moral superiority to the capitalist incentives of proprietary software, are starting to get tedious.

antran22 5y ago

The point of open source is people can use it freely. A better project, which hits the right spots will naturally attract financial and technical support, both from the companies and the community. It is really just a free market, where the best projects survive.

gbmark 5y ago
Financial support is pretty arbitrary and not related to quality, user numbers or importance of the software. OpenSSL has only recently received support despite powering all the Internet infrastructure for decades. Xorg, xterm etc. have received very little or nothing. Same for most Unix system tools. Projects that receive the most are "open" source corporate vanity projects that are also used for bait-and-switch hiring.
- thevagrant 5y ago
  It's almost like open-source needs a micropayments solution. If every download cost a tiny amount, could it add up to pay some maintainers full time?
intricatedetail 5y ago
_people_ not big corporations that make billions, don't pay tax and don't share revenue made using the open source software. Personal use should be free but gravy train for corporations must end.

muyuu 5y ago

I was onboard until you suggested law changes