42 ms·
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 contribu
by 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".
- lobocinza 5y agoTo be fair open source licenses tend to mix both. Is there a license that is like MIT but with special clauses for people making big bucket? I don't think I can just put an extra clause on it that says something on the line of "if you are using this to earn more than X big macs by year then you have to pay me or be subject to a fine". This radically changes things as it may void the liability clause and also make code less fungible. And there's the issue of fairness to contributors.
- GreenWatermelon 5y agoBoth seem to result in more jobs for devs: - Devs do open source and get rewarded - Devs get hired to make crappy alternative software for companies
- lobocinza 5y agoUnless someone find a way to replace devs with a machine there will be demand. And for the good and the bad there are efforts and partial success on doing that like tools to develop sites using only a GUI.