5 ms·

I don't think many people are lamenting the fact that their project is popular and being used. Because they can just... stop maintaining it if they wanted. The

I don't think many people are lamenting the fact that their project is popular and being used. Because they can just... stop maintaining it if they wanted. They are completely free to do so. Many developers like to feel useful, feel like they are solving an important problem in a suitable way. Some even want the fame associated with it, or the doors having such (a) project(s) opens (you use X? I wrote it, and maintain it - or people hunting you specifically because you are known to have created X). The point is, the tradeoff between the feeling of being taken advantage of and feeling useful and fulfilled because of solving an important problem in a suitable way is controlled directly by the author / developer! If they feel it is not worth the effort, they can just stop! Having a permissive license helps you gain popularity. Many people won't touch GPL derivatives for their business / side-project-that-might-turn-into-a-business so such a license can have an inhibiting effect in adoption. Developers generally aren't stupid, they know that and they choose more permissive licenses, because they want to be seen, they want their solution to be used. They maybe want the fame and open doors associated with having such a project take off. It is a trade-off under their control. They can stop with maintenance any time. Hell they can even change the license of future versions (if they have not started with a GPL-like license) if they want. So I don't see the problem here. Everything is under the developer's control. You can't have it both ways: The boost to popularity by having a no-strings-attached license, but reaping proportional profits from such an endeavor as if you had a restrictive license protected by a business entity. If you give money (value) away for free, you'll be pretty popular. "I want to be easily popular as if I'm giving money (value) away for free, without actually giving money (value) away for free" does not make much sense.

jasonhansel 5y ago
Since widely-publicized OSS work can be a prerequisite for top jobs, it often isn't really a "free choice." But if it is a choice, then it's a choice that undermines fellow workers. By working for free, you're taking away jobs from people who might genuinely need them and be unable to work for free. In this way, OSS work can serve to entrench inequality by giving a hiring advantage to those with more time and resources, while reducing the salaried jobs available for others in the industry.
- abnry 5y ago
  Is there really a shortage of tech jobs caused by open source projects?
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    I've wondered this for a long time. Or if it had a depressing effect on wages. FOSS certainly helps with productivity. Though I believe it's very likely also depressing wages and reducing the volume of software jobs.
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    I have no evidence at all, but I think open source projects create more jobs than it "destroyed" because it reduces the cost of doing businesses of tech startups at critical growth phases and makes them viable by allowing fewer employees to do more. Without open source, companies would employ more people per company, but have much fewer companies overall, IMO. Additionally, salaries would be much lower because skills wouldn't be easily transferable between jobs - hence lower competition for employees.
- senko 5y ago
  > Since widely-publicized OSS work can be a prerequisite for top jobs, it often isn't really a "free choice." Which top jobs require you to be a widely-publicized OSS author? I've only ever heard this to be a plus (which I believe is fair), not a requirement.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - smarterclayton 5y ago
    It’s not a requirement at Red Hat, because anyone can be converted to the open source religion. This surprised me when I started - I thought I would need to be indoctrinated, but then it just became normal to see open source as the only way to work. That said, RH hires key contributors all the time (as do many companies), so being the maintainer of a project is definitely a plus.
3pt14159 5y ago
I love OSS. I just think it should come with a cap. If a single stakeholder (shareholder, employee, bondholder, etc) is worth $1B USD or more, the license is $1m[0] a year. That way we all get to have fun, but the megagiants like Amazon actually have to pay something back to projects like Postgres. We'll get better security and a naturally progressive, opt-in tax on the largest of companies and investors. [0] Or whatever, if it's a small library maybe $50k or maybe something that scales with market cap, etc. Throw lawyers at it.
- version_five 5y ago
  You can make a license like that if you want to.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    Just don't pretend that it's open source.
    - 3pt14159 5y ago
      How is it not open source?
      - version_five 5y ago
        I would say it could be open source (defined as you can see the source code) but it's not free, as in it has restrictions.
        josephcsible 5y ago
        > open source (defined as you can see the source code) But that's not what that's defined as.
        ddulaney 5y ago
        I define Open Source to mean that I can see the source code. The OSI defines open source one way, and I just defined open source another way. This is an inconsistency that trips up lots of people on HN and elsewhere. There isn’t one definition, there are many, and calling “anybody but the mega-rich can use this for free; they have to pay” open source falls within some definitions but not others.
lmm 5y ago
> Many people won't touch GPL derivatives for their business / side-project-that-might-turn-into-a-business so such a license can have an inhibiting effect in adoption. Developers generally aren't stupid, they know that and they choose more permissive licenses, because they want to be seen, they want their solution to be used. They maybe want the fame and open doors associated with having such a project take off. It is a trade-off under their control. It's a race to the bottom, largely because developers aren't unionized. Developers who would do work under the GPL get undercut by those who are willing to do it for free.

jasonhansel 5y ago

Since widely-publicized OSS work can be a prerequisite for top jobs, it often isn't really a "free choice." But if it is a choice, then it's a choice that undermines fellow workers. By working for free, you're taking away jobs from people who might genuinely need them and be unable to work for free. In this way, OSS work can serve to entrench inequality by giving a hiring advantage to those with more time and resources, while reducing the salaried jobs available for others in the industry.

abnry 5y ago
Is there really a shortage of tech jobs caused by open source projects?
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  I've wondered this for a long time. Or if it had a depressing effect on wages. FOSS certainly helps with productivity. Though I believe it's very likely also depressing wages and reducing the volume of software jobs.
- sangnoir 5y ago
  I have no evidence at all, but I think open source projects create more jobs than it "destroyed" because it reduces the cost of doing businesses of tech startups at critical growth phases and makes them viable by allowing fewer employees to do more. Without open source, companies would employ more people per company, but have much fewer companies overall, IMO. Additionally, salaries would be much lower because skills wouldn't be easily transferable between jobs - hence lower competition for employees.
senko 5y ago
> Since widely-publicized OSS work can be a prerequisite for top jobs, it often isn't really a "free choice." Which top jobs require you to be a widely-publicized OSS author? I've only ever heard this to be a plus (which I believe is fair), not a requirement.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- smarterclayton 5y ago
  It’s not a requirement at Red Hat, because anyone can be converted to the open source religion. This surprised me when I started - I thought I would need to be indoctrinated, but then it just became normal to see open source as the only way to work. That said, RH hires key contributors all the time (as do many companies), so being the maintainer of a project is definitely a plus.

3pt14159 5y ago

I love OSS. I just think it should come with a cap. If a single stakeholder (shareholder, employee, bondholder, etc) is worth $1B USD or more, the license is $1m[0] a year. That way we all get to have fun, but the megagiants like Amazon actually have to pay something back to projects like Postgres. We'll get better security and a naturally progressive, opt-in tax on the largest of companies and investors. [0] Or whatever, if it's a small library maybe $50k or maybe something that scales with market cap, etc. Throw lawyers at it.

version_five 5y ago
You can make a license like that if you want to.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Just don't pretend that it's open source.
  - 3pt14159 5y ago
    How is it not open source?
    - version_five 5y ago
      I would say it could be open source (defined as you can see the source code) but it's not free, as in it has restrictions.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        > open source (defined as you can see the source code) But that's not what that's defined as.
        ddulaney 5y ago
        I define Open Source to mean that I can see the source code. The OSI defines open source one way, and I just defined open source another way. This is an inconsistency that trips up lots of people on HN and elsewhere. There isn’t one definition, there are many, and calling “anybody but the mega-rich can use this for free; they have to pay” open source falls within some definitions but not others.

lmm 5y ago

> Many people won't touch GPL derivatives for their business / side-project-that-might-turn-into-a-business so such a license can have an inhibiting effect in adoption. Developers generally aren't stupid, they know that and they choose more permissive licenses, because they want to be seen, they want their solution to be used. They maybe want the fame and open doors associated with having such a project take off. It is a trade-off under their control. It's a race to the bottom, largely because developers aren't unionized. Developers who would do work under the GPL get undercut by those who are willing to do it for free.