6 ms·

People need to stop mucking around with abusing open-source and open-source licenses. If you want to become a millionaire make your software product commercial

People need to stop mucking around with abusing open-source and open-source licenses. If you want to become a millionaire make your software product commercial. If you want it to be open-source, keep it that way forever and don't start complaining "Oh, I really want to be a millionaire but I'm not because all these people are using my code for free! Now all you millions of people who are using my code should pay me from now on!" I believe charging for software after you've gained a user base in the millions is akin to a rug-pull scam. I even believe that criminal liability comes into play here. It's a good thing the .NET Foundation expels all the projects that change their licensing to commercial.

croes 4y ago
So there os no in-between between open source and millionaire? How about, if you can afford it and use the software, help financing it's maintenance?
Dylan16807 4y ago
They're only trying to charge for new versions. You're being ridiculous.
throwaway_au_1 4y ago
>If you want to become a millionaire Strawman >I even believe that criminal liability comes into play here The gross entitlement of FOSS users is the primary reason I will never contribute in substance to open source software. In what world is a 'userbase in the millions' not an indicator of the software's value, and how are the developers deserving of criminal liability for wanting to make money from it? What, they should perform highly-skilled software engineering for free while their efforts are the basis of profit generation for many others?
- bmitc 4y ago
  I don't think your last comment addresses what they were getting at. If someone open sources something with a permissive license with all things pointing to keeping that license, and then switches it up once they get users, then that is a bit of a bait and switch. It is different than saying from the get-go "hey, we need money to develop this, so please pay". Is it really entitlement to be a little upset at having built large things on top of permissively licensed software only for that software to suddenly become locked behind a new license?
  - taberiand 4y ago
    If the software versions prior to the licence change remains open source, and the new licence only affects development going forward, there shouldn't be any issue whatsover for users of the open source version. Has there been an instance of a licence change closing off access to previously open source code? (Is that even possible to do when forks are trivially created?)
    - bmitc 4y ago
      Yea, they can keep using the old versions, but that locks them out of the new versions and breaks expectations, especially since they were a member of the .NET Foundation. So it's up to them to keep using a version that won't get fixes or new features or accept the new license. This whole thing just points out how hard all of this is to get right. I understand both sides. But I do at least get the feeling that the ImageSharp team is a bit high strung. https://github.com/dotnet/Microsoft.Maui.Graphics/issues/47 https://github.com/dotnet/Microsoft.Maui.Graphics/issues/47 I think this is probably an intentional move to move away from Microsoft and the .NET Foundation in addition to trying to capitalize on people making a lot of money from the software package. After having looked at the license, it seems reasonable enough to me aside from the technicalities others have brought up. The vvvv tool follows a similar license of, it's free unless you make money from it.
      - yyyk 4y ago
        >So it's up to them to keep using a version that won't get fixes or new features or accept the new license. Users can always fork the old version. We can't force the ImageSharp team to maintain software under a licence they don't want. >After having looked at the license, it seems reasonable enough to me aside from the technicalities others have brought up. It's reasonable in theory, in practice I'd rather avoid entangling $WORK with potential liabilities. I prefer more clearcut licences (require payment for all commerical use or don't require at all).
        bmitc 4y ago
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  "The gross entitlement of FOSS users" I will somehow survive my entire life without any of your withheld contributions.
  - throwaway_au_1 4y ago
    Unsure what you're attempting to contribute to the discussion with this comment.
    - Brian_K_White 4y ago
      same
whatentitlesyou 4y ago
chlorion 4y ago
So the maintainers should be legally required to maintain the software, for free, forever, just because you depend on it? That is an insane level of entitlement. So long as it's their software they can change the license of new versions as they desire. If they decide to change the license and you depend on the software, you can maintain a fork of the project. I'm sure you don't like that answer, but this is exactly why open source licenses offer no warranty or promise of support, and you willingly decided to rely on some software with such a license. You can't just pretend like this aspect of the license doesn't exist because it's inconvenient for you. If you want guaranteed support for any software, hire someone, or do it yourself! I think a lot of the controversy surrounding these situations is that people aren't educated about what open/free software really is, or the ideals behind it, or don't care and just want free stuff from other people. The idea is that you can use source code, modify it and create derived works from it if you desire (normally with attribution or whatever), and with the GPL there is an additional restriction that derived works must also be GPL'd. Free software does not imply that people want to work for you for free and doesn't imply that they intend on supporting the project at all.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  > So the maintainers should be legally required to maintain the software, for free, forever, just because you depend on it? That is an insane level of entitlement. I didn’t get that, at all, from the GP. They just said that it’s not (in their opinion) fair to build up a user base that becomes dependent, then use that dependency as leverage. That’s basically the Sackler Family method. I release a bunch of code, as MIT. If someone wants to use it, fork it, sell it, whatever. Just don’t expect me to be on the hook for maintaining it, or guaranteeing it. If I want to drastically change it, or even do something evil, like have it phone home, I could do that (I won’t). I could also change the license, going forward, as these folks did. I’m under no obligation to maintain my stuff for any reason, other than I use it, myself, so I want it to be good. That said, I consider myself to be an excellent steward, of really good software, that no one (except Yours Truly) uses. That’s fine with me, but I take great care of my stuff, anyway. If I sign a contract, then that’s a different matter.
  - 4y ago
googlryas 4y ago
You're arguing for literal slavery here. "I came to rely on the free thing you gave me, now you need to keep supporting it forever, for free, or else you're a criminal." No. You have the right to keep using the software provided for free forever. You don't have a right to have the work product of a person or group for free forever.
EMM_386 4y ago
> If you want to become a millionaire make your software product commercial. If you want it to be open-source, keep it that way forever and don't start complaining "Oh, I really want to be a millionaire but I'm not because all these people are using my code for free! Now all you millions of people who are using my code should pay me from now on!" This reminds me of what Marak did after he went on a rant that he's not paid enough for his effort. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/dev-corrupts-npm-libs-colors-and-faker-breaking-thousands-of-apps/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/dev-corrupts-...

croes 4y ago

So there os no in-between between open source and millionaire? How about, if you can afford it and use the software, help financing it's maintenance?

Dylan16807 4y ago

They're only trying to charge for new versions. You're being ridiculous.

throwaway_au_1 4y ago

>If you want to become a millionaire Strawman >I even believe that criminal liability comes into play here The gross entitlement of FOSS users is the primary reason I will never contribute in substance to open source software. In what world is a 'userbase in the millions' not an indicator of the software's value, and how are the developers deserving of criminal liability for wanting to make money from it? What, they should perform highly-skilled software engineering for free while their efforts are the basis of profit generation for many others?

bmitc 4y ago
I don't think your last comment addresses what they were getting at. If someone open sources something with a permissive license with all things pointing to keeping that license, and then switches it up once they get users, then that is a bit of a bait and switch. It is different than saying from the get-go "hey, we need money to develop this, so please pay". Is it really entitlement to be a little upset at having built large things on top of permissively licensed software only for that software to suddenly become locked behind a new license?
- taberiand 4y ago
  If the software versions prior to the licence change remains open source, and the new licence only affects development going forward, there shouldn't be any issue whatsover for users of the open source version. Has there been an instance of a licence change closing off access to previously open source code? (Is that even possible to do when forks are trivially created?)
  - bmitc 4y ago
    Yea, they can keep using the old versions, but that locks them out of the new versions and breaks expectations, especially since they were a member of the .NET Foundation. So it's up to them to keep using a version that won't get fixes or new features or accept the new license. This whole thing just points out how hard all of this is to get right. I understand both sides. But I do at least get the feeling that the ImageSharp team is a bit high strung. https://github.com/dotnet/Microsoft.Maui.Graphics/issues/47 https://github.com/dotnet/Microsoft.Maui.Graphics/issues/47 I think this is probably an intentional move to move away from Microsoft and the .NET Foundation in addition to trying to capitalize on people making a lot of money from the software package. After having looked at the license, it seems reasonable enough to me aside from the technicalities others have brought up. The vvvv tool follows a similar license of, it's free unless you make money from it.
    - yyyk 4y ago
      >So it's up to them to keep using a version that won't get fixes or new features or accept the new license. Users can always fork the old version. We can't force the ImageSharp team to maintain software under a licence they don't want. >After having looked at the license, it seems reasonable enough to me aside from the technicalities others have brought up. It's reasonable in theory, in practice I'd rather avoid entangling $WORK with potential liabilities. I prefer more clearcut licences (require payment for all commerical use or don't require at all).
      - bmitc 4y ago
Brian_K_White 4y ago
"The gross entitlement of FOSS users" I will somehow survive my entire life without any of your withheld contributions.
- throwaway_au_1 4y ago
  Unsure what you're attempting to contribute to the discussion with this comment.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    same

whatentitlesyou 4y ago

chlorion 4y ago

So the maintainers should be legally required to maintain the software, for free, forever, just because you depend on it? That is an insane level of entitlement. So long as it's their software they can change the license of new versions as they desire. If they decide to change the license and you depend on the software, you can maintain a fork of the project. I'm sure you don't like that answer, but this is exactly why open source licenses offer no warranty or promise of support, and you willingly decided to rely on some software with such a license. You can't just pretend like this aspect of the license doesn't exist because it's inconvenient for you. If you want guaranteed support for any software, hire someone, or do it yourself! I think a lot of the controversy surrounding these situations is that people aren't educated about what open/free software really is, or the ideals behind it, or don't care and just want free stuff from other people. The idea is that you can use source code, modify it and create derived works from it if you desire (normally with attribution or whatever), and with the GPL there is an additional restriction that derived works must also be GPL'd. Free software does not imply that people want to work for you for free and doesn't imply that they intend on supporting the project at all.

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
> So the maintainers should be legally required to maintain the software, for free, forever, just because you depend on it? That is an insane level of entitlement. I didn’t get that, at all, from the GP. They just said that it’s not (in their opinion) fair to build up a user base that becomes dependent, then use that dependency as leverage. That’s basically the Sackler Family method. I release a bunch of code, as MIT. If someone wants to use it, fork it, sell it, whatever. Just don’t expect me to be on the hook for maintaining it, or guaranteeing it. If I want to drastically change it, or even do something evil, like have it phone home, I could do that (I won’t). I could also change the license, going forward, as these folks did. I’m under no obligation to maintain my stuff for any reason, other than I use it, myself, so I want it to be good. That said, I consider myself to be an excellent steward, of really good software, that no one (except Yours Truly) uses. That’s fine with me, but I take great care of my stuff, anyway. If I sign a contract, then that’s a different matter.
- 4y ago

googlryas 4y ago

You're arguing for literal slavery here. "I came to rely on the free thing you gave me, now you need to keep supporting it forever, for free, or else you're a criminal." No. You have the right to keep using the software provided for free forever. You don't have a right to have the work product of a person or group for free forever.

EMM_386 4y ago

> If you want to become a millionaire make your software product commercial. If you want it to be open-source, keep it that way forever and don't start complaining "Oh, I really want to be a millionaire but I'm not because all these people are using my code for free! Now all you millions of people who are using my code should pay me from now on!" This reminds me of what Marak did after he went on a rant that he's not paid enough for his effort. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/dev-corrupts-npm-libs-colors-and-faker-breaking-thousands-of-apps/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/dev-corrupts-...