4 ms·

What the article refers to as bait and switch is what open source maintainers call disillusionment, and the realization that nobody is there to prop them up and

What the article refers to as bait and switch is what open source maintainers call disillusionment, and the realization that nobody is there to prop them up and feed them while they work for the public good. You should not shame people who try to build something sustainable, but instead try to improve the system that makes altruistic work difficult.

kevincox 4y ago
Just because something has upsides doesn't mean it doesn't have downsides. While I am glad that this will likely provide more funding to these projects changing to a non-free license has incredible impact on how a project can be used. I think it is fair to talk about this and how it can maybe be done better.
- dessant 4y ago
  > I think it is fair to talk about this and how it can maybe be done better. I agree, though it's evident that the discussion is stained by the tone of this article. They aren't approaching this topic with some respect and understanding, while being fully aware that these license changes are aimed at large companies which keep taking, but do not support the open source community.
  - hodgesrm 4y ago
    Isn't it also the case that large companies are the reason projects like Linux have been so successful? Linux is an example. A very high percentage of Linux contributions are from corporate sponsors. [0] [0] https://thenewstack.io/contributes-linux-kernel/ https://thenewstack.io/contributes-linux-kernel/ (Kind of old but I don't think it has changed much.)
    - dessant 4y ago
      Some companies do support open source projects, though that has no relevance here. We're talking about large companies that generate a profit on the back of open source projects, and refuse to support those projects.
      - PeterZaitsev 4y ago
        If you want to control which companies can use your project free of charge and which do not there is already choice for that - this choice just is not called Open Source.
      - hodgesrm 4y ago
        By what method woud you propose to distinguish companies that "refuse to support those projects?"
PeterZaitsev 4y ago
I am (author of the article) "shaming" (your words) not for trying to build sustainable but trying to have a cake and eat it too. If maintainer believes the hard choice of Open Source is not for them it is fine. Go ahead write proprietary software instead Being Buddhist Monk is hard too but you perhaps would find it silly someone wanting to call himself one but not wanting to follow the rules which come with definition ?
- redwood 4y ago
  It's pretty common actually. The world exists in many shades of gray. Not everyone is a high priest like (I suppose) you.
  - PeterZaitsev 4y ago
    Yes. And there are many Names to describe such grayness. You do not want to call "water" even weak wine as there are those who do not appreciate alcohol it contains

kevincox 4y ago

Just because something has upsides doesn't mean it doesn't have downsides. While I am glad that this will likely provide more funding to these projects changing to a non-free license has incredible impact on how a project can be used. I think it is fair to talk about this and how it can maybe be done better.

dessant 4y ago
> I think it is fair to talk about this and how it can maybe be done better. I agree, though it's evident that the discussion is stained by the tone of this article. They aren't approaching this topic with some respect and understanding, while being fully aware that these license changes are aimed at large companies which keep taking, but do not support the open source community.
- hodgesrm 4y ago
  Isn't it also the case that large companies are the reason projects like Linux have been so successful? Linux is an example. A very high percentage of Linux contributions are from corporate sponsors. [0] [0] https://thenewstack.io/contributes-linux-kernel/ https://thenewstack.io/contributes-linux-kernel/ (Kind of old but I don't think it has changed much.)
  - dessant 4y ago
    Some companies do support open source projects, though that has no relevance here. We're talking about large companies that generate a profit on the back of open source projects, and refuse to support those projects.
    - PeterZaitsev 4y ago
      If you want to control which companies can use your project free of charge and which do not there is already choice for that - this choice just is not called Open Source.
    - hodgesrm 4y ago
      By what method woud you propose to distinguish companies that "refuse to support those projects?"

PeterZaitsev 4y ago

I am (author of the article) "shaming" (your words) not for trying to build sustainable but trying to have a cake and eat it too. If maintainer believes the hard choice of Open Source is not for them it is fine. Go ahead write proprietary software instead Being Buddhist Monk is hard too but you perhaps would find it silly someone wanting to call himself one but not wanting to follow the rules which come with definition ?

redwood 4y ago
It's pretty common actually. The world exists in many shades of gray. Not everyone is a high priest like (I suppose) you.
- PeterZaitsev 4y ago
  Yes. And there are many Names to describe such grayness. You do not want to call "water" even weak wine as there are those who do not appreciate alcohol it contains