3 ms·

This is a good outcome for James. This guy fucking smashes academic papers out of hours to make ImageSharp possible. Folks who aren’t in the imaging space reall

This is a good outcome for James. This guy fucking smashes academic papers out of hours to make ImageSharp possible. Folks who aren’t in the imaging space really have no clue just how hard this shit is. Gl James. tbh; dotnet foundation really doesn’t provide much value to member projects. See https://www.isdotnetopen.com https://www.isdotnetopen.com for context.

TAForObvReasons 4y ago
The entire situation is a bad outcome. From the article: > The .NET Foundation accepts projects that use permissive licenses within that set [of OSI-approved licenses]. > The board clarified that projects in the Foundation must use a permissive OSI-approved license and that projects would all be treated the same. Per the linked article https://sixlabors.com/posts/license-changes/ https://sixlabors.com/posts/license-changes/ > Previous attempts (sponsorship, support license) to provide a sustainable income to ensure the continued development of the Six Labors libraries have not proven successful, yielding less than a few months of developer income over a period of several years. It sounds like James' monetization efforts were unsuccessful. The new monetization approach and relicensing is not considered compatible with the open source nature of the dotnet foundation. Whether the new approach works remains to be seen, but it likely burned a lot of community goodwill.
- phoronixrly 4y ago
  > Whether the new approach works remains to be seen True, I hope it does. > but it likely burned a lot of community goodwill That also remains to be seen. And would it burn less community goodwill to stop developing the project at all? Also it doesn't really matter if this move burns community goodwill. It's the author's decision to make. Any member of the community is free to fork before the license change, and any member of the community is free to not submit patches upstream.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > Also it doesn't really matter if this move burns community goodwill It could. Burning goodwill is an easy way to incentivise new open source competitors.
no_wizard 4y ago
Here’s the part that got me: > We believe that sponsorship is a necessary component of sustainability. It’s an important way for users to say “thank you”. It is great to see corporations step up to sponsor projects, like AWS and Microsoft. Clearly, ImageSharp and projects like it need higher levels of sponsorship I thought - I am not sure why but I did - that .NET foundation packages were well founded and they actively helped get funding for the projects. It amazes me that Microsoft (and other big .NET players) aren’t already fully funding what is ostensibly considered a bedrock library within the community. It is my understanding after all the foundation only accepts projects in part due to their popularity and impact in the ecosystem as a whole. I guess it’s not just the web ecosystem that has this problems
- whaleofatw2022 4y ago
  .net foundation membership gives you a little extra exposure at the risk of Microsoft having additional visibility that your project is worth copying.

TAForObvReasons 4y ago

The entire situation is a bad outcome. From the article: > The .NET Foundation accepts projects that use permissive licenses within that set [of OSI-approved licenses]. > The board clarified that projects in the Foundation must use a permissive OSI-approved license and that projects would all be treated the same. Per the linked article https://sixlabors.com/posts/license-changes/ https://sixlabors.com/posts/license-changes/ > Previous attempts (sponsorship, support license) to provide a sustainable income to ensure the continued development of the Six Labors libraries have not proven successful, yielding less than a few months of developer income over a period of several years. It sounds like James' monetization efforts were unsuccessful. The new monetization approach and relicensing is not considered compatible with the open source nature of the dotnet foundation. Whether the new approach works remains to be seen, but it likely burned a lot of community goodwill.

phoronixrly 4y ago
> Whether the new approach works remains to be seen True, I hope it does. > but it likely burned a lot of community goodwill That also remains to be seen. And would it burn less community goodwill to stop developing the project at all? Also it doesn't really matter if this move burns community goodwill. It's the author's decision to make. Any member of the community is free to fork before the license change, and any member of the community is free to not submit patches upstream.
- naasking 4y ago
  > Also it doesn't really matter if this move burns community goodwill It could. Burning goodwill is an easy way to incentivise new open source competitors.

no_wizard 4y ago

Here’s the part that got me: > We believe that sponsorship is a necessary component of sustainability. It’s an important way for users to say “thank you”. It is great to see corporations step up to sponsor projects, like AWS and Microsoft. Clearly, ImageSharp and projects like it need higher levels of sponsorship I thought - I am not sure why but I did - that .NET foundation packages were well founded and they actively helped get funding for the projects. It amazes me that Microsoft (and other big .NET players) aren’t already fully funding what is ostensibly considered a bedrock library within the community. It is my understanding after all the foundation only accepts projects in part due to their popularity and impact in the ecosystem as a whole. I guess it’s not just the web ecosystem that has this problems

whaleofatw2022 4y ago
.net foundation membership gives you a little extra exposure at the risk of Microsoft having additional visibility that your project is worth copying.