3 ms·

>Apache 2.0 >open source movement is not about making it easy for you to do business, it is about freedom for users of your software. Say what you will about

by Affric 4y ago

>Apache 2.0 >open source movement is not about making it easy for you to do business, it is about freedom for users of your software. Say what you will about RMS this is the exact kind of thing that the GPL is written for. "Open Source" exists to benefit business. "Free Software" exists to benefit users. On the flip side I think it's fair that if they have many of these large customers with more than $25 million in turn over not contributing that they do pay for the software development.

shapefrog 4y ago
> have many of these large customers with more than $25 million in turn over not contributing that they do pay for the software development If your net worth, inclusive of tech stock options is >$5mil you should have to pay to the developer for any open source software that you use, or is used in any of the products you use. (hint: its going to be expensive)
- PeterZaitsev 4y ago
  I think it is fantastic if people create proprietary software and make it available for free to everyone with net worth of $5M or less (or any criteria) just do not call it Open Source software.
hodgesrm 4y ago
> On the flip side I think it's fair that if they have many of these large customers with more than $25 million in turn over not contributing that they do pay for the software development. Do you mean for every single OSS project? Have a look at the dependency graph for a typical React project or anything built with Maven. Charging for this is unworkable. The collaborative work on which open source is based would collapse. Just as a concrete example, ClickHouse incorporates something like 97 other software packages in contrib ranging from NuRaft to zstd. ClickHouse in its current form is only possible if those packages remain free.
PeterZaitsev 4y ago
I think your definition here is Off. Both Apache 2.0 and GPL qualify both as "Open Source" and "Free Software" Yes of course many large companies do not contribute. If your goal is to FORCE to contribute customers to your liking this is what Proprietary license is for. Go proprietary and you can discriminate customers based on their ability to pay. Open Source though requires same access - rich and poor, good and evil and especially relinquishing control for you to decide which is which
- kdmccormick 4y ago
  You are saying these things as if they are fact. > Open Source though requires same access - rich and poor, good and evil and especially relinquishing control for you to decide which is which No it doesn't. If you believe the legal system, then you believe that we can make real rules about people's behavior, even in circumstances where we won't physically be the there to force that behavior. More concretely: We can certainly say "this code is freely available to read" without saying "you can do whatever you want with this code with no repercussions", even though technically anyone can download any open source code and use it to run a business on their servers. If you do doubt that this is possible to enforce, then consider music: I can listen to almost any piece of modern music on Spotify. That does not mean I can use any piece of modern music in a commercial royalty-free unless I'm interested in getting sued. The question is not whether we can enforce Copyleft/etc licenses. It's whether we have the will and money to do so.

by Affric 4y ago

shapefrog 4y ago

> have many of these large customers with more than $25 million in turn over not contributing that they do pay for the software development If your net worth, inclusive of tech stock options is >$5mil you should have to pay to the developer for any open source software that you use, or is used in any of the products you use. (hint: its going to be expensive)

PeterZaitsev 4y ago
I think it is fantastic if people create proprietary software and make it available for free to everyone with net worth of $5M or less (or any criteria) just do not call it Open Source software.

hodgesrm 4y ago

> On the flip side I think it's fair that if they have many of these large customers with more than $25 million in turn over not contributing that they do pay for the software development. Do you mean for every single OSS project? Have a look at the dependency graph for a typical React project or anything built with Maven. Charging for this is unworkable. The collaborative work on which open source is based would collapse. Just as a concrete example, ClickHouse incorporates something like 97 other software packages in contrib ranging from NuRaft to zstd. ClickHouse in its current form is only possible if those packages remain free.

PeterZaitsev 4y ago

I think your definition here is Off. Both Apache 2.0 and GPL qualify both as "Open Source" and "Free Software" Yes of course many large companies do not contribute. If your goal is to FORCE to contribute customers to your liking this is what Proprietary license is for. Go proprietary and you can discriminate customers based on their ability to pay. Open Source though requires same access - rich and poor, good and evil and especially relinquishing control for you to decide which is which

kdmccormick 4y ago
You are saying these things as if they are fact. > Open Source though requires same access - rich and poor, good and evil and especially relinquishing control for you to decide which is which No it doesn't. If you believe the legal system, then you believe that we can make real rules about people's behavior, even in circumstances where we won't physically be the there to force that behavior. More concretely: We can certainly say "this code is freely available to read" without saying "you can do whatever you want with this code with no repercussions", even though technically anyone can download any open source code and use it to run a business on their servers. If you do doubt that this is possible to enforce, then consider music: I can listen to almost any piece of modern music on Spotify. That does not mean I can use any piece of modern music in a commercial royalty-free unless I'm interested in getting sued. The question is not whether we can enforce Copyleft/etc licenses. It's whether we have the will and money to do so.