5 ms·

My sense is that it’s time to evolve licensing such that wealthy major consumers of packages that have become somewhat essential are naturally paying a licence

My sense is that it’s time to evolve licensing such that wealthy major consumers of packages that have become somewhat essential are naturally paying a licence fee. The problem is not in what the code does it’s a problem with the agreement for use.

evolve2k 5y ago
Actually in attempting to answer my own question, on other platforms like YouTube and Medium, popular content receives monetary support by virtue of being popular. What if this was addressed at the “platform” level, I’m thinking the package manager here, NPM. If npm had paid plans that would essentially mop up larger corporations they could then auto-distribute funds Spotify style based on “number of listens”. I’d personally want to see this work mainly as enterprise plans.
- tailspin2019 5y ago
  > If npm had paid plans that would essentially mop up larger corporations they could then auto-distribute funds Spotify style based on “number of listens”. This seems like a pretty decent idea…
  - hibikir 5y ago
    Until there's enough money in the pot that making your packages seem very important happens to be a productive use of one's time. At that point, you have to start dealing with fake downloads, dependencies added for no reason to somewhat more popular packages that aren't paying much attention... and suddenly you need to take money from the pool to pay for your fraud prevention team.
    - paulryanrogers 5y ago
      Perhaps download's value could be weighted by associated domains? For example if Apple.com is relying on it the author will get paid more than random.example
  - rlyshw 5y ago
    Except the Spotify model is also rife with issues. Artists generally hate Spotify and hardly make a living off of “pay per stream”. Most of them still very much depend on tours, merch, and, at the higher level, brand deals to make any money off of their craft.
    - ThunderSizzle 5y ago
      Spotify isn't a replacement for tours. It's a replacement for cds and/or radio, both of which make artists similar amounts of miniscule amounts of money. For programmers, you'd be correct. That only really be a replacement for patreons, tips, and donations, which would typically be a miniscule amount. It just redistribute it instead. (Your $x subscription just automatically gets allotted instead of manually allotted).
  - jay_kyburz 5y ago
    Or they could just pay people to develop and maintain a batteries included standard library and just throw away 99% of packages.
- arvinsim 5y ago
  I think a new license should be created in order to facilitate this.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    That would be awful. Such a license would necessarily be neither free nor open source.
rackjack 5y ago
This is already kind of happening with GPL for open source and Paid for commercial projects.
sneak 5y ago
When you publish free software you give it away as a gift. That's the point. Expecting compensation for a gift is the error.
- gokhan 5y ago
  It's not the original gift that is the problem, all maintainers start very happy early on but keeping software up while adding more features is costly, someone needs to pay an it's almost always paid by the maintainer in terms of free time. If you intend to keep it as the original gift, it will be called abandoned.
  - shukantpal 5y ago
    > keeping software up while adding more features is costly The software maintenance is also given out as a gift. That's a choice.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > The software maintenance is also given out as a gift. That's a choice. So he's perfectly entitled to choose not to do that any more, no?
- lobocinza 5y ago
  Free as in freedom is not the same as free as in beer. This model where someone develops something for free and then those that benefit the most don't contribute back isn't sustainable. I don't know if the packages owner was conscious about it but this was a political act and hopefully the impact will be positive. From where we are we have two options: (1) companies find a way to make open source financially rewarding; (2) companies use their own crap instead.
  - shukantpal 5y ago
    > Free as in freedom is not the same as free as in beer. It's a choice to distribute software for "free" as in "free beer".
throw_m239339 5y ago
> My sense is that it’s time to evolve licensing such that wealthy major consumers of packages that have become somewhat essential are naturally paying a licence fee. Yes, it's called paid software, but don't worry, it's going to be trendy again soon. The days of free software contribution are almost over. Devs want to be paid for their work. too many corporations made billions from open source projects while maintainers live in quasi poverty. What is needed is a proper market place for paid open source software. Github isn't one.
- laurent92 5y ago
  > proper marketing CVE are the proper marketing. The perspective of having a package with a vulnerability and no-one to provide a fix is frightening to any software maintainer. I think I could be extorted dozens of thousands for a single upgrade. Heck, when the electrician auditor says our office is not certified for 2022, I pay $700 for a professional to fix it. Software will be the same very soon.

evolve2k 5y ago

Actually in attempting to answer my own question, on other platforms like YouTube and Medium, popular content receives monetary support by virtue of being popular. What if this was addressed at the “platform” level, I’m thinking the package manager here, NPM. If npm had paid plans that would essentially mop up larger corporations they could then auto-distribute funds Spotify style based on “number of listens”. I’d personally want to see this work mainly as enterprise plans.

tailspin2019 5y ago
> If npm had paid plans that would essentially mop up larger corporations they could then auto-distribute funds Spotify style based on “number of listens”. This seems like a pretty decent idea…
- hibikir 5y ago
  Until there's enough money in the pot that making your packages seem very important happens to be a productive use of one's time. At that point, you have to start dealing with fake downloads, dependencies added for no reason to somewhat more popular packages that aren't paying much attention... and suddenly you need to take money from the pool to pay for your fraud prevention team.
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    Perhaps download's value could be weighted by associated domains? For example if Apple.com is relying on it the author will get paid more than random.example
- rlyshw 5y ago
  Except the Spotify model is also rife with issues. Artists generally hate Spotify and hardly make a living off of “pay per stream”. Most of them still very much depend on tours, merch, and, at the higher level, brand deals to make any money off of their craft.
  - ThunderSizzle 5y ago
    Spotify isn't a replacement for tours. It's a replacement for cds and/or radio, both of which make artists similar amounts of miniscule amounts of money. For programmers, you'd be correct. That only really be a replacement for patreons, tips, and donations, which would typically be a miniscule amount. It just redistribute it instead. (Your $x subscription just automatically gets allotted instead of manually allotted).
- jay_kyburz 5y ago
  Or they could just pay people to develop and maintain a batteries included standard library and just throw away 99% of packages.
arvinsim 5y ago
I think a new license should be created in order to facilitate this.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  That would be awful. Such a license would necessarily be neither free nor open source.

rackjack 5y ago

This is already kind of happening with GPL for open source and Paid for commercial projects.

sneak 5y ago

When you publish free software you give it away as a gift. That's the point. Expecting compensation for a gift is the error.

gokhan 5y ago
It's not the original gift that is the problem, all maintainers start very happy early on but keeping software up while adding more features is costly, someone needs to pay an it's almost always paid by the maintainer in terms of free time. If you intend to keep it as the original gift, it will be called abandoned.
- shukantpal 5y ago
  > keeping software up while adding more features is costly The software maintenance is also given out as a gift. That's a choice.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > The software maintenance is also given out as a gift. That's a choice. So he's perfectly entitled to choose not to do that any more, no?
lobocinza 5y ago
Free as in freedom is not the same as free as in beer. This model where someone develops something for free and then those that benefit the most don't contribute back isn't sustainable. I don't know if the packages owner was conscious about it but this was a political act and hopefully the impact will be positive. From where we are we have two options: (1) companies find a way to make open source financially rewarding; (2) companies use their own crap instead.
- shukantpal 5y ago
  > Free as in freedom is not the same as free as in beer. It's a choice to distribute software for "free" as in "free beer".

throw_m239339 5y ago

> My sense is that it’s time to evolve licensing such that wealthy major consumers of packages that have become somewhat essential are naturally paying a licence fee. Yes, it's called paid software, but don't worry, it's going to be trendy again soon. The days of free software contribution are almost over. Devs want to be paid for their work. too many corporations made billions from open source projects while maintainers live in quasi poverty. What is needed is a proper market place for paid open source software. Github isn't one.

laurent92 5y ago
> proper marketing CVE are the proper marketing. The perspective of having a package with a vulnerability and no-one to provide a fix is frightening to any software maintainer. I think I could be extorted dozens of thousands for a single upgrade. Heck, when the electrician auditor says our office is not certified for 2022, I pay $700 for a professional to fix it. Software will be the same very soon.