4 ms·

> The FOSS way should be to pay it forward, to contribute to projects where you can. In theory, this was enforced by copyleft requiring derivative works to als

by Osmose 5y ago

> The FOSS way should be to pay it forward, to contribute to projects where you can. In theory, this was enforced by copyleft requiring derivative works to also be free software. In practice, companies use software with permissible licenses instead because then they can reap the benefits without any requirement to pay it forward. > If you’re expecting to get paid for it, it’s not FOSS. Being paid for your time has nothing to do with whether your source code is public or what freedoms users have when using your software. Conflating free software with volunteer labor is exactly what leads to situations like this one, where the author's business based on faker got copied wholesale by a competitor who simply ignored their attempts to reach out. > Deciding you can’t maintain a project anymore is fine, but pulling it out from under the people that are using it is incredibly anti-FOSS. The mechanisms that allow a rug-pull are entirely choices made by the users of the libraries for their own convenience; the author did everything needed for you to download a working copy and use it in perpetuity. It's your fault for choosing to rely on NPM, choosing to not cache your dependencies, and choosing not to pin your dependencies.

josephcsible 5y ago
> In theory, this was enforced by copyleft requiring derivative works to also be free software. In practice, companies use software with permissible licenses instead because then they can reap the benefits without any requirement to pay it forward. If you want to fix this, stop contributing to permissively-licensed software. If you have a change you want to make, make or find a GPL fork of it and contribute it to that instead.
- Osmose 5y ago
  Individual action is not gonna solve anything, you have to understand why people choose permissive licenses in the first place: - They're contributing while at work and work only allows permissive licenses - They're familiar with permissive libraries because of the previous point - Permissive licenses are perceived as simpler - They've been pushed away from the free software movement by the FSF/Stallman/Linus - They don't think copyleft is the right form of enforcement
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    I don't think anyone is confused about why people prefer permissive licenses. People enjoy benefits without costs or responsibilities, unsurprisingly.
    - Osmose 5y ago
      Fair! I didn't finish the thought, which was to address those shortcomings by either making free software work better for those needs (e.g. work with tech unions to negotiate guaranteed funding of projects used by companies) or by making it less attractive to use permissive software (e.g. via regulation).
AmericanChopper 5y ago
Copyleft software isn’t free, it comes with a very hefty price tag. You don’t pay it forward by handing over all your IP. You pay it forward by contributing back. I have no moral qualms about using OSS in any project I’m working on, commercial or otherwise. Because I have published my own libraries for anybody to use, and contributed a huge amount of PRs to the software I use. When you publish something with a permissive licence, it stops being yours, but you benefit from having a huge number of people improve it for you. That’s how it works, that’s how it gets paid forward. The OP is also attempting to use a proven failure of a business model, and then throwing a tantrum when it fails. Sure he’s within his rights to do so, but he has no moral high ground here, and I don’t think he’s entitled to any sympathy for adopting a business model that everybody knows for sure doesn’t work.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Working on someone's software that they make no money from isn't "paying" it forward or in any direction. > it stops being yours, but you benefit from having a huge number of people improve it for you It stops being yours, but somehow everyone who works on it can say they're helping you. This isn't fair. You don't have to pay for it, but fixing and adding features to the software that you use to make a living can't be counted as charity work.
  - AmericanChopper 5y ago
    FOSS has never been about getting paid to write software. It’s not a charity, it’s a contribution to a community. I contribute because I benefit from being part of a system that has contributors in it. The people who expect direct compensation for their contributions do not uphold those values, and are deteriorating the integrity of the FOSS system itself.
- Osmose 5y ago
  Your conception of free software is not how free software is generally understood; free software is about the rights of the users, not the expectation that people contribute to it. Sure, if you _define_ free software as being about a lack of ownership by one person and expected contributions, then you can criticize this. But what happened here is that free/open source software doesn't have a consistent stance on paying maintainers or contributors, and this author feels that it's unfair and (potentially in the midst of other personal issues, it seems?) took advantage of a problem with how the ecosystem pulls in dependencies to complain about it.
challenger-derp 5y ago
I like these arguments. As a matter of practicality, commercial entities using a maintainers' work should donate to maintainers to incentive them to, well, at least not go rogue, or to be on their good side when they rogue. Companies pay their employees to incentive them to function in the interests of the company. While this isn't fool-proof (principal-agent problem), it lowers the odds of a pissed off employee having the will/self-righteous fury to pursue something more aggressive than resigning in a huff.

by Osmose 5y ago

josephcsible 5y ago

> In theory, this was enforced by copyleft requiring derivative works to also be free software. In practice, companies use software with permissible licenses instead because then they can reap the benefits without any requirement to pay it forward. If you want to fix this, stop contributing to permissively-licensed software. If you have a change you want to make, make or find a GPL fork of it and contribute it to that instead.

Osmose 5y ago
Individual action is not gonna solve anything, you have to understand why people choose permissive licenses in the first place: - They're contributing while at work and work only allows permissive licenses - They're familiar with permissive libraries because of the previous point - Permissive licenses are perceived as simpler - They've been pushed away from the free software movement by the FSF/Stallman/Linus - They don't think copyleft is the right form of enforcement
- pessimizer 5y ago
  I don't think anyone is confused about why people prefer permissive licenses. People enjoy benefits without costs or responsibilities, unsurprisingly.
  - Osmose 5y ago
    Fair! I didn't finish the thought, which was to address those shortcomings by either making free software work better for those needs (e.g. work with tech unions to negotiate guaranteed funding of projects used by companies) or by making it less attractive to use permissive software (e.g. via regulation).

AmericanChopper 5y ago

Copyleft software isn’t free, it comes with a very hefty price tag. You don’t pay it forward by handing over all your IP. You pay it forward by contributing back. I have no moral qualms about using OSS in any project I’m working on, commercial or otherwise. Because I have published my own libraries for anybody to use, and contributed a huge amount of PRs to the software I use. When you publish something with a permissive licence, it stops being yours, but you benefit from having a huge number of people improve it for you. That’s how it works, that’s how it gets paid forward. The OP is also attempting to use a proven failure of a business model, and then throwing a tantrum when it fails. Sure he’s within his rights to do so, but he has no moral high ground here, and I don’t think he’s entitled to any sympathy for adopting a business model that everybody knows for sure doesn’t work.

pessimizer 5y ago
Working on someone's software that they make no money from isn't "paying" it forward or in any direction. > it stops being yours, but you benefit from having a huge number of people improve it for you It stops being yours, but somehow everyone who works on it can say they're helping you. This isn't fair. You don't have to pay for it, but fixing and adding features to the software that you use to make a living can't be counted as charity work.
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  FOSS has never been about getting paid to write software. It’s not a charity, it’s a contribution to a community. I contribute because I benefit from being part of a system that has contributors in it. The people who expect direct compensation for their contributions do not uphold those values, and are deteriorating the integrity of the FOSS system itself.
Osmose 5y ago
Your conception of free software is not how free software is generally understood; free software is about the rights of the users, not the expectation that people contribute to it. Sure, if you _define_ free software as being about a lack of ownership by one person and expected contributions, then you can criticize this. But what happened here is that free/open source software doesn't have a consistent stance on paying maintainers or contributors, and this author feels that it's unfair and (potentially in the midst of other personal issues, it seems?) took advantage of a problem with how the ecosystem pulls in dependencies to complain about it.

challenger-derp 5y ago

I like these arguments. As a matter of practicality, commercial entities using a maintainers' work should donate to maintainers to incentive them to, well, at least not go rogue, or to be on their good side when they rogue. Companies pay their employees to incentive them to function in the interests of the company. While this isn't fool-proof (principal-agent problem), it lowers the odds of a pissed off employee having the will/self-righteous fury to pursue something more aggressive than resigning in a huff.