3 ms·

I think there should be something like "Private copying levy" but for open source developers that create useful libraries. My example would be cURL. Car makers

by ozim 5y ago

I think there should be something like "Private copying levy" but for open source developers that create useful libraries. My example would be cURL. Car makers have it incorporated in their software and well I don't think any of those car makers was going to Daniel to buy that piece of software or contributed back to the project. For "private copying levy" I don't really agree all poets should take cut because there is no demonstrable evidence that someone is using their work, so they would receive money for nothing. While open source developers can demonstrate that their software is used by those companies to build products and people use their work while using products. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2018/08/12/a-hundred-million-cars-run-curl/ https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2018/08/12/a-hundred-million-car...

shakna 5y ago
It took Daniel 937 days to get a visa [0] to _visit_ the US. I don't really see the US ever being interested in the contributions of a particular software, like cURL, to their industries as a whole. Any levy to support it would be fought at every level. [0] https://daniel.haxx.se/us-visa.html https://daniel.haxx.se/us-visa.html
- ozim 5y ago
  This cURL is just a single example, and as Daniel is Swedish then that would be on Sweden to introduce such levy and pay it out to him. But as other example if someone would be US national and contributed to OpenSSL project, he should get some payment for that. This would possibly fix quite some issues with OSS funding and contributors burnout. Because there are real examples of big corporations taking advantage of open source code without paying anything. Unfortunately OSS contributors are quite small group so their votes are not something that would make government take them seriously. But their work is proven to be important for society and that should be taken into consideration.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    > as Daniel is Swedish then that would be on Sweden to introduce such levy and pay it out to him. That just makes the situation even worse; it would be painted (with some justification) as wrecking the Swedish domestic software industry.
    - ozim 5y ago
      How can someone justify: "We are going to tax Microsoft, Apple an Google for using Open Source software created by Swedish developers and pay money collected to those developers" as "wrecking the Swedish domestic software industry"? I would say it would make more Swedish people interested in writing software and getting back value that BigCorps are stealing from Sweden.
ahepp 5y ago
Isn't this problem easily and simply solved by dual licensing GPL/commercial? If Daniel wanted something in return for his code, he should not have MIT licensed it. I don't mean that in a snarky way, I just don't see what more there is to say on the matter.
- ozim 5y ago
  Daniel is doing quite well I believe as he manages to get some money from corporations. I gave him as an example of ubiquitous code used by huge corporations, mostly without paying for it. So don't fixate on single person, take look from a perspective. What is the article about? It is about contributor that does not want his code to be included somewhere and licensing does not work for him. So earning money on OSS is also not *simply solved* by dual licensing GPL/commercial. There are multiple reasons why not. Corporations or companies can't just simply pay some random dude from the internet and often they will just not even think about it. But they can simply use OSS code as easy as downloading it form github. Running a company to chase those corporations down, well that is not something you want to spend time on. Setting up legal entity for most projects will not even make financial sense. That levy fixes that and fixes problem of setting a company by OSS contributors as they would be paid just like artists in "levy" scheme.

by ozim 5y ago

shakna 5y ago

It took Daniel 937 days to get a visa [0] to _visit_ the US. I don't really see the US ever being interested in the contributions of a particular software, like cURL, to their industries as a whole. Any levy to support it would be fought at every level. [0] https://daniel.haxx.se/us-visa.html https://daniel.haxx.se/us-visa.html

ozim 5y ago
This cURL is just a single example, and as Daniel is Swedish then that would be on Sweden to introduce such levy and pay it out to him. But as other example if someone would be US national and contributed to OpenSSL project, he should get some payment for that. This would possibly fix quite some issues with OSS funding and contributors burnout. Because there are real examples of big corporations taking advantage of open source code without paying anything. Unfortunately OSS contributors are quite small group so their votes are not something that would make government take them seriously. But their work is proven to be important for society and that should be taken into consideration.
- pjc50 5y ago
  > as Daniel is Swedish then that would be on Sweden to introduce such levy and pay it out to him. That just makes the situation even worse; it would be painted (with some justification) as wrecking the Swedish domestic software industry.
  - ozim 5y ago
    How can someone justify: "We are going to tax Microsoft, Apple an Google for using Open Source software created by Swedish developers and pay money collected to those developers" as "wrecking the Swedish domestic software industry"? I would say it would make more Swedish people interested in writing software and getting back value that BigCorps are stealing from Sweden.

ahepp 5y ago

Isn't this problem easily and simply solved by dual licensing GPL/commercial? If Daniel wanted something in return for his code, he should not have MIT licensed it. I don't mean that in a snarky way, I just don't see what more there is to say on the matter.

ozim 5y ago
Daniel is doing quite well I believe as he manages to get some money from corporations. I gave him as an example of ubiquitous code used by huge corporations, mostly without paying for it. So don't fixate on single person, take look from a perspective. What is the article about? It is about contributor that does not want his code to be included somewhere and licensing does not work for him. So earning money on OSS is also not *simply solved* by dual licensing GPL/commercial. There are multiple reasons why not. Corporations or companies can't just simply pay some random dude from the internet and often they will just not even think about it. But they can simply use OSS code as easy as downloading it form github. Running a company to chase those corporations down, well that is not something you want to spend time on. Setting up legal entity for most projects will not even make financial sense. That levy fixes that and fixes problem of setting a company by OSS contributors as they would be paid just like artists in "levy" scheme.