8 ms·

I don't get it. If you give something away for free, you should not expect money for it. If you license it for anyone to use, you should not be surprised if so

I don't get it. If you give something away for free, you should not expect money for it. If you license it for anyone to use, you should not be surprised if some of the users end up being big companies. By choosing to give it away, you have chosen to give up control of what happens. If you want to sell software for money, then do that. If you want control over how it is used, choose a license that gives you that control. But don't just give things away for free and then complain about what users do with the freedom you willingly gave to them.

jlarocco 4y ago
I've been pointing this out for a long time, and 100% agree with you. Open source was originally about the freedom to use software in new and creative ways, and NOT about giving away free stuff.
- shapefrog 4y ago
  The vast majority of open-source enthusiasts I have encountered, 99% of whom have never looked at a line of code, are advocates of open-source software for free beer reasons not for freedom reason. There is almost a point where, like all language, the original meaning becomes obsolete and a new one takes over.
  - jlarocco 4y ago
    Sure, but I think it's important to remind people because the "problem" in the article isn't going to be fixed any other way than developers fixing it on their own and changing their behavior. Free as in beer code is a huge benefit to everybody else, so don't count on them to fix the problem. Really, from the outside it looks silly - "I gave my code away, and now I'm not profiting from it!". Then at the same time all of the biggest, richest companies in the world are software companies because they chose not to do that.
    - shapefrog 4y ago
      So much of the internet famous generation got rich by doing something, giving it away for free, then making a pile of money from giving it away for free. From bloggers to vloggers to streamers to influencers to banksy to almost every tech company. The outlier of sorts is open-source developers. To be honest I have no answers to the problem, and personally find most of the answers that do get thrown around dont pass the most basic of logic tests. So like you the only option I see is for developers to make the change, stop the freedom and the free ride.
e_i_pi_2 4y ago
If the author decides to they could always get around this with a license too - they could say that it can be used but not in a for-profit company, or that anything built using it must also be open sourced, etc. A more restrictive license would limit adoption but then the author can still have some control over how it's used afterwards
api 4y ago
The confusion revolves around free vs. freedom. Open source is supposed to be about freedom first and foremost, but for most people it's really about free. People would rather have free bait with a hook attached than freedom that costs something, even if the cost is quite small.
- dingosity 4y ago
  [citation needed]
lamontcg 4y ago
But this is what leads to rational developers working for companies on loss-leader open-source "bait+switch" models. There's this idea that open source should be totally free, but then how does the developer writing the software wind up eating and paying their rent? There's the linux kernel and mozilla and other massive open source projects which have large companies and foundations and budgets behind them, but that is the 0.01% of open source projects. When OSS maintainers setup companies and go the "loss leader" or "bait and switch" or "freemium" models so that they release open source code, but the Enterprise-level offerings are locked behind proprietary licenses then this is looked at as being a betrayal. The OSS community almost seems to require OSS maintainers to be in poverty, while allowing large corporations to freely consume all of their work. That just isn't sustainable.
- twblalock 4y ago
  > The OSS community almost seems to require OSS maintainers to be in poverty, while allowing large corporations to freely consume all of their work. That just isn't sustainable. First of all, it's been sustainable for a long time -- what changed? Secondly, a lot of major open source projects are being worked on by developers who are employed full-time by large corporations to do it. And I don't just mean Red Hat or the Linux kernel. Those devs get paid by their employers to work on open source projects that benefit their employers and also the wider community -- it seems like a really successful, scalable, sustainable model. The people who are having a hard time are the indie devs, but let's be honest, being an indie dev who gives away software for free has always been, and always will be, a bad business model. It's not a good idea to do that for a living. It never will be.
  - xani_ 4y ago
    > First of all, it's been sustainable for a long time -- what changed? Big failures like OpenSSL fiasco happened - where sure, company was sustainable but due to skewed priorities coz of funding (companies that founded it founded features that from perspective of any other company were bloat, and not enough work went into modernizing the code) the code was shit and full of traps. And it's still a fact that vast majority of developers of stuff used everywhere wouldn't be able to do it as full or even part time job for financial reasons. All while the corporate is pushing same "BSD/MIT good, GPL bad" agenda, coz they don't need to contribute anything back to stuff they take
dingosity 4y ago
There's a difference between copyright and license. Under US intellectual property law, it is possible to release software for zero dollars, but retain IP interests. This is why you'll see a LICENSE file in the source code for most open source projects. It contains a legal contract explaining the users rights to use the software. What you're probably thinking of is "Public Domain." That's where a creator disclaims most (though not all) rights to the creation.
moron4hire 4y ago
The problem is that open-source purists the likes of the Free Software Foundation have and continue to maintain that FOSS doesn't have to mean gratis, that there is supposedly some kind of reasonable path to being able to feed yourself while working on FOSS. There is an idea pervasive within the developer culture that--through sweat and grit--one can build a project (regardless of FOSS or not) and eventually be recognized for the effort. And not just recognized, but recognized in a specific way. For some developers, that is notoriety. For others, it's money. But the idea is basically "my code in -> my definition of validation out". And I think it's pretty clear that, for most projects out there, that's just not true. Or, more specifically, there is a huge chunk of the story that is missing. Because it's not hard to find dozens of projects in almost any niche, across thousands of niches. For the vast majority of them, they toil in obscurity. Some of them might be underdeveloped, but I see that more as a result of the failure to receive said validation leading to quitting the project. There is clearly some other factor involved in between creating a project and finding success with that project. A lot of that missing element is selling. Even FOSS projects that are delivered free of charge to users need to "sell" themselves. Linux wouldn't be anywhere if Linus Torvalds hadn't recruited users. You have to convince people to try your thing and that convincing can take many forms. "Selling" is putting a name to "the act of convincing". It's not quality code. It's not documentation. It's not a pretty website. Lots of failed projects have those things. Lots of successful ones don't. You have to market your project, and that's work. Work that isn't coding. And that's why more developers don't do it. Celebrity developers have people hanging on their every word on Twitter already. They have already done the work of advertising--advertising themselves--and now they cash in on the reputation and can make a successful project just by announcing it. Large corporations have money to pour into actual advertising and marketing for new projects. But independent developers don't have the cache or the money to be able to pull that off, and don't have the visibility into the background work on those other projects to know how their efforts are different from the projects they look up to. But FOSS advocates keep pointing to the work of celebrity developers, of "open-source aligned" corporations, and saying "see, open-source can work". There's a lot of pressure from other developers to open your work. Most of the loudest voices keep saying, "this path works", leaving out the key element, making it sound like a dream. I call this the "Field of Dreams Paradox". We have the phrase "if you build it, they will come" stuck in our cultural memory, but have forgotten that the movie is about a literal miracle.
dark-star 4y ago
Yes, but this is exactly the point: These companies want to start open and free, to get as many people as possible to use their product. And then, later, they want to make money from it. This is the "bait & switch". It is planned right from the beginning, the tricky part is that you need to make the "it's completely free" phase as long as possible (using borrowed cash, investor money, whatever) to have as large a userbase as possible. And THEN switch. It's literally the definition of "bait & switch"
- LtWorf 4y ago
  You can't change license of published work. They are changing license of the new stuff. You are free to keep using whatever you were using forever. It's the same as a maintainer just abandoning a project and you having to take over.
  - kazinator 4y ago
    The copyright holder can absolutely change the license of a published work. The FOSS license thereby becomes unavailable; no new users can become licensees. If the FOSS license was such that it didn't restrict use, but only redistribution, then only the existing redistributors are licensees. The existing users have no rights. If the new license says that unlicensed use is not allowed, then the users are now infringing. They didn't agree to any license in order to use the program when it was free and therefore they are not in any agreement that can be grandfathered. Even if a license says that it's irrevocable (or some doctrine applies which makes it so, regardless) it can only be irrevocable to those users who have entered into the license. Those users may enjoy the continued right to redistribute the program. However, new users receiving the program do not benefit from the irrevocability; they have no existing license contract that can be grandfathered. If a program has gone from FOSS to "cannot redistribute or use", the situation is like that existing licensees are allowed to give away copies, but the new users receiving them aren't allowed to do anything with those copies. Software whose copyright holder has expressed revocation of a FOSS license should be regarded by all parties as a piece of radioactive or biohazardous waste. Don't even think about maintaining a fork or anything of the sort.
tpoacher 4y ago
Well, it's a bit like you organize, at personal cost, and for all the right reasons and out of the goodness of your heart, a food-bank, free to anyone who needs food. And then the CEO of megacorp sends employees to come everyday and empty your foodbank and serve the food at the company canteen, because this saves the company catering money, and thus profit. Yes, technically everyone's welcome at your food bank, but ... it won't be long before you'd stop doing it, right?
- ocdtrekkie 4y ago
  Yep. And I've now had discussions with OSI leadership that even more entrench for me that this is working as intended as far as they are concerned.
- Chris2048 4y ago
  ..in a world where food can be duplicated for nothing.. this is RIAA logic. The implied nature of a food bank is providing food to those in need - I've yet to see a software where the implication is that the wealthy can't use it.
  - tpoacher 4y ago
    You extended the analogy beyond the point it was addressing; if you do that you might as well start talking about the obesity epidemic or food allergies or whatnot. The point being made is that people getting upset when they are made to feel like their altruism is taken advantage of, let alone abused to ends that are against the spirit of the original work, and getting disillusioned and abandoning projects of love, is quite a natural and altogether human reaction. OP said they didn't get why anyone would/should be particularly upset by megacorps using their open source software in perhaps not the manner originally envisaged. I was simply trying to come up with a more relatable example to relate why. The induplicability of food is completely irrelevant here.
    - Chris2048 4y ago
      The point is that "spirit of the original work" needs to explicit, not everyone who uses a software should have to have personal insight into the mind of the dev. > The induplicability of food is completely irrelevant here. Then in what sense is the metaphor valuable? It was merely meant to depict an emotion that the humans on this forum will already be well aware of?

jlarocco 4y ago

I've been pointing this out for a long time, and 100% agree with you. Open source was originally about the freedom to use software in new and creative ways, and NOT about giving away free stuff.

shapefrog 4y ago
The vast majority of open-source enthusiasts I have encountered, 99% of whom have never looked at a line of code, are advocates of open-source software for free beer reasons not for freedom reason. There is almost a point where, like all language, the original meaning becomes obsolete and a new one takes over.
- jlarocco 4y ago
  Sure, but I think it's important to remind people because the "problem" in the article isn't going to be fixed any other way than developers fixing it on their own and changing their behavior. Free as in beer code is a huge benefit to everybody else, so don't count on them to fix the problem. Really, from the outside it looks silly - "I gave my code away, and now I'm not profiting from it!". Then at the same time all of the biggest, richest companies in the world are software companies because they chose not to do that.
  - shapefrog 4y ago
    So much of the internet famous generation got rich by doing something, giving it away for free, then making a pile of money from giving it away for free. From bloggers to vloggers to streamers to influencers to banksy to almost every tech company. The outlier of sorts is open-source developers. To be honest I have no answers to the problem, and personally find most of the answers that do get thrown around dont pass the most basic of logic tests. So like you the only option I see is for developers to make the change, stop the freedom and the free ride.

e_i_pi_2 4y ago

If the author decides to they could always get around this with a license too - they could say that it can be used but not in a for-profit company, or that anything built using it must also be open sourced, etc. A more restrictive license would limit adoption but then the author can still have some control over how it's used afterwards

api 4y ago

The confusion revolves around free vs. freedom. Open source is supposed to be about freedom first and foremost, but for most people it's really about free. People would rather have free bait with a hook attached than freedom that costs something, even if the cost is quite small.

dingosity 4y ago
[citation needed]

lamontcg 4y ago

But this is what leads to rational developers working for companies on loss-leader open-source "bait+switch" models. There's this idea that open source should be totally free, but then how does the developer writing the software wind up eating and paying their rent? There's the linux kernel and mozilla and other massive open source projects which have large companies and foundations and budgets behind them, but that is the 0.01% of open source projects. When OSS maintainers setup companies and go the "loss leader" or "bait and switch" or "freemium" models so that they release open source code, but the Enterprise-level offerings are locked behind proprietary licenses then this is looked at as being a betrayal. The OSS community almost seems to require OSS maintainers to be in poverty, while allowing large corporations to freely consume all of their work. That just isn't sustainable.

twblalock 4y ago
> The OSS community almost seems to require OSS maintainers to be in poverty, while allowing large corporations to freely consume all of their work. That just isn't sustainable. First of all, it's been sustainable for a long time -- what changed? Secondly, a lot of major open source projects are being worked on by developers who are employed full-time by large corporations to do it. And I don't just mean Red Hat or the Linux kernel. Those devs get paid by their employers to work on open source projects that benefit their employers and also the wider community -- it seems like a really successful, scalable, sustainable model. The people who are having a hard time are the indie devs, but let's be honest, being an indie dev who gives away software for free has always been, and always will be, a bad business model. It's not a good idea to do that for a living. It never will be.
- xani_ 4y ago
  > First of all, it's been sustainable for a long time -- what changed? Big failures like OpenSSL fiasco happened - where sure, company was sustainable but due to skewed priorities coz of funding (companies that founded it founded features that from perspective of any other company were bloat, and not enough work went into modernizing the code) the code was shit and full of traps. And it's still a fact that vast majority of developers of stuff used everywhere wouldn't be able to do it as full or even part time job for financial reasons. All while the corporate is pushing same "BSD/MIT good, GPL bad" agenda, coz they don't need to contribute anything back to stuff they take

dingosity 4y ago

There's a difference between copyright and license. Under US intellectual property law, it is possible to release software for zero dollars, but retain IP interests. This is why you'll see a LICENSE file in the source code for most open source projects. It contains a legal contract explaining the users rights to use the software. What you're probably thinking of is "Public Domain." That's where a creator disclaims most (though not all) rights to the creation.

moron4hire 4y ago

The problem is that open-source purists the likes of the Free Software Foundation have and continue to maintain that FOSS doesn't have to mean gratis, that there is supposedly some kind of reasonable path to being able to feed yourself while working on FOSS. There is an idea pervasive within the developer culture that--through sweat and grit--one can build a project (regardless of FOSS or not) and eventually be recognized for the effort. And not just recognized, but recognized in a specific way. For some developers, that is notoriety. For others, it's money. But the idea is basically "my code in -> my definition of validation out". And I think it's pretty clear that, for most projects out there, that's just not true. Or, more specifically, there is a huge chunk of the story that is missing. Because it's not hard to find dozens of projects in almost any niche, across thousands of niches. For the vast majority of them, they toil in obscurity. Some of them might be underdeveloped, but I see that more as a result of the failure to receive said validation leading to quitting the project. There is clearly some other factor involved in between creating a project and finding success with that project. A lot of that missing element is selling. Even FOSS projects that are delivered free of charge to users need to "sell" themselves. Linux wouldn't be anywhere if Linus Torvalds hadn't recruited users. You have to convince people to try your thing and that convincing can take many forms. "Selling" is putting a name to "the act of convincing". It's not quality code. It's not documentation. It's not a pretty website. Lots of failed projects have those things. Lots of successful ones don't. You have to market your project, and that's work. Work that isn't coding. And that's why more developers don't do it. Celebrity developers have people hanging on their every word on Twitter already. They have already done the work of advertising--advertising themselves--and now they cash in on the reputation and can make a successful project just by announcing it. Large corporations have money to pour into actual advertising and marketing for new projects. But independent developers don't have the cache or the money to be able to pull that off, and don't have the visibility into the background work on those other projects to know how their efforts are different from the projects they look up to. But FOSS advocates keep pointing to the work of celebrity developers, of "open-source aligned" corporations, and saying "see, open-source can work". There's a lot of pressure from other developers to open your work. Most of the loudest voices keep saying, "this path works", leaving out the key element, making it sound like a dream. I call this the "Field of Dreams Paradox". We have the phrase "if you build it, they will come" stuck in our cultural memory, but have forgotten that the movie is about a literal miracle.

dark-star 4y ago

Yes, but this is exactly the point: These companies want to start open and free, to get as many people as possible to use their product. And then, later, they want to make money from it. This is the "bait & switch". It is planned right from the beginning, the tricky part is that you need to make the "it's completely free" phase as long as possible (using borrowed cash, investor money, whatever) to have as large a userbase as possible. And THEN switch. It's literally the definition of "bait & switch"

LtWorf 4y ago
You can't change license of published work. They are changing license of the new stuff. You are free to keep using whatever you were using forever. It's the same as a maintainer just abandoning a project and you having to take over.
- kazinator 4y ago
  The copyright holder can absolutely change the license of a published work. The FOSS license thereby becomes unavailable; no new users can become licensees. If the FOSS license was such that it didn't restrict use, but only redistribution, then only the existing redistributors are licensees. The existing users have no rights. If the new license says that unlicensed use is not allowed, then the users are now infringing. They didn't agree to any license in order to use the program when it was free and therefore they are not in any agreement that can be grandfathered. Even if a license says that it's irrevocable (or some doctrine applies which makes it so, regardless) it can only be irrevocable to those users who have entered into the license. Those users may enjoy the continued right to redistribute the program. However, new users receiving the program do not benefit from the irrevocability; they have no existing license contract that can be grandfathered. If a program has gone from FOSS to "cannot redistribute or use", the situation is like that existing licensees are allowed to give away copies, but the new users receiving them aren't allowed to do anything with those copies. Software whose copyright holder has expressed revocation of a FOSS license should be regarded by all parties as a piece of radioactive or biohazardous waste. Don't even think about maintaining a fork or anything of the sort.

tpoacher 4y ago

Well, it's a bit like you organize, at personal cost, and for all the right reasons and out of the goodness of your heart, a food-bank, free to anyone who needs food. And then the CEO of megacorp sends employees to come everyday and empty your foodbank and serve the food at the company canteen, because this saves the company catering money, and thus profit. Yes, technically everyone's welcome at your food bank, but ... it won't be long before you'd stop doing it, right?

ocdtrekkie 4y ago
Yep. And I've now had discussions with OSI leadership that even more entrench for me that this is working as intended as far as they are concerned.
Chris2048 4y ago
..in a world where food can be duplicated for nothing.. this is RIAA logic. The implied nature of a food bank is providing food to those in need - I've yet to see a software where the implication is that the wealthy can't use it.
- tpoacher 4y ago
  You extended the analogy beyond the point it was addressing; if you do that you might as well start talking about the obesity epidemic or food allergies or whatnot. The point being made is that people getting upset when they are made to feel like their altruism is taken advantage of, let alone abused to ends that are against the spirit of the original work, and getting disillusioned and abandoning projects of love, is quite a natural and altogether human reaction. OP said they didn't get why anyone would/should be particularly upset by megacorps using their open source software in perhaps not the manner originally envisaged. I was simply trying to come up with a more relatable example to relate why. The induplicability of food is completely irrelevant here.
  - Chris2048 4y ago
    The point is that "spirit of the original work" needs to explicit, not everyone who uses a software should have to have personal insight into the mind of the dev. > The induplicability of food is completely irrelevant here. Then in what sense is the metaphor valuable? It was merely meant to depict an emotion that the humans on this forum will already be well aware of?