4 ms·

I say this nearly every time something like this is posted. The isn't isn't so much open source, it's that no one is getting paid. We're constantly relying on p

I say this nearly every time something like this is posted. The isn't isn't so much open source, it's that no one is getting paid. We're constantly relying on projects that we get for free where in esscence we're relying on goodwill. So much so, that people say don't add new features because you're depending on the goodwill of that contributor and they may disappear. Which is basically the same was the open source maintainer may disappear. Basically, this blog posts highlights why we should be paying for software libraries we use. All the downsides of proprietary code happens in open source. Open source projects don't add features you need, they can release a new version that has breaking changes and stop supporting the old version, they can just disappear, etc. However, the reality is, very rarely does popular proprietary just stop getting updated. While that happens in most somewhat popular open-source libraries. You can go to most mature open-source libraries and you'll see that the commit activity is down from when the project started. Many will say that's because it's feature complete. However, if you look at the open issues you'll see lots of activity. Often the issue is that the original maintainer has lost interest, be it because life - love affairs, children, sickness, etc, or that they've got a new hobby - arts, music, new tech, etc. I don't blame these maintainers, it's free and they owe me nothing. But at the same time I blame the industry for making it so common to build on these libraries that literally promise nothing for production code that you'll be extremely hard press to find a job that doesn't require you to build on top of FOSS. My prefered approach which I'm taking with my SaaS Boilerplate/General functionality bundle is use source-available license. Namely BSL - Business Source License with an additional grant that if you make less than $5k per month you don't need to pay. This allows the best of both worlds in my opinion. The ability to test it out, see it, use it for free in certain scenarios while making people who make money from it pay for it's maintenance. The full details of this license and approach can be read in the FAQ https://github.com/getparthenon/parthenon#faq https://github.com/getparthenon/parthenon#faq

dec0dedab0de 4y ago
The problem with paid proprietary code is that it almost inevitably devolves into a bloated mess of haphazard features being tacked on year after year by contractors who don't care about how hard it is to maintain, and don't even care if it works well because they don't need the code themselves, and the people buying the code don't use it, because they're buying it on behalf of a company and the people who actually use it just have to suffer through it. I think the one thing that would help open source more than anything else is if we outlawed contracts where the employer owns all copywritable material created by the employee.
- that_guy_iain 4y ago
  I would say that problem exists in open source too.
lliamander 4y ago
> I say this nearly every time something like this is posted. The isn't isn't so much open source, it's that no one is getting paid. We're constantly relying on projects that we get for free where in esscence we're relying on goodwill. So much so, that people say don't add new features because you're depending on the goodwill of that contributor and they may disappear. Which is basically the same was the open source maintainer may disappear. I have no problems with open source maintainers charging for software, but I think the bigger problem is people having incorrect expectations of the open source model. The main point of the open source is that if the software isn't doing what you need, then you can fix it yourself. Developers often act so helpless when it comes to dealing with bugs or missing features in their open source dependencies. Obviously that involves work, as you can't rely on some third party to maintain the software (or at least your fork) for you. On the other hand, you can't always rely on the vendor of proprietary software either. But at least in the open source model you can rely on yourself, and you can still incorporate any upstream improvements that do come along. In my view, if you are releasing software as open source then it should have "paid for itself" in some way. Perhaps it was internal software that is used at your company, or perhaps it was written to scratch your own itch. In either case, the work is done and the cost is paid, and you are just sharing it because there's no added cost to you and maybe someone else will benefit from having the source code. As a final note, it's not just the goodwill of open source maintainers that we are relying on - we also depend upon their desire for status. Being a maintainer of a popular open source project is high status, and something many people covet. That's why many maintainers will put in so much uncompensated time and put up with demanding users: they want the status that comes with having an "important" open source project. Smart maintainers will either learn how to profit from that status or learn how to tell demanding users (politely) to "fork off".
- that_guy_iain 4y ago
  > But at least in the open source model you can rely on yourself, and you can still incorporate any upstream improvements that do come along. Here comes the issue, what if it can't get incorporated upstream? You end up with your own custom fork. With third-party corporate code, you can nearly always pay for them to add a feature. Very rarely will a company say there is no price high enough for them to add a feature. This is so common that the pricing is pretty much standardised, nearly every company I've worked for when adding features for customers charge the same 1 thousand euros per developer day of work. Source available via BSL still allows for the modification of the code to customise it. So that benefit is still there. > In my view, if you are releasing software as open source then it should have "paid for itself" in some way. Perhaps it was internal software that is used at your company, or perhaps it was written to scratch your own itch. In either case, the work is done and the cost is paid, and you are just sharing it because there's no added cost to you and maybe someone else will benefit from having the source code. The real cost of software is maintaince. Updating it to keep it working with newer versions of x,y,z. etc. > As a final note, it's not just the goodwill of open source maintainers that we are relying on - we also depend upon their desire for status. Being a maintainer of a popular open source project is high status, and something many people covet. That's why many maintainers will put in so much uncompensated time and put up with demanding users: they want the status that comes with having an "important" open source project. Smart maintainers will either learn how to profit from that status or learn how to tell demanding users (politely) to "fork off". Not all projects are considered popular even though they're widely used. You may end up using a very rare but very important library to do something that not many people are doing. Not everything is sexy, especially when it comes to libraries you need for work.

dec0dedab0de 4y ago

The problem with paid proprietary code is that it almost inevitably devolves into a bloated mess of haphazard features being tacked on year after year by contractors who don't care about how hard it is to maintain, and don't even care if it works well because they don't need the code themselves, and the people buying the code don't use it, because they're buying it on behalf of a company and the people who actually use it just have to suffer through it. I think the one thing that would help open source more than anything else is if we outlawed contracts where the employer owns all copywritable material created by the employee.

that_guy_iain 4y ago
I would say that problem exists in open source too.

lliamander 4y ago

> I say this nearly every time something like this is posted. The isn't isn't so much open source, it's that no one is getting paid. We're constantly relying on projects that we get for free where in esscence we're relying on goodwill. So much so, that people say don't add new features because you're depending on the goodwill of that contributor and they may disappear. Which is basically the same was the open source maintainer may disappear. I have no problems with open source maintainers charging for software, but I think the bigger problem is people having incorrect expectations of the open source model. The main point of the open source is that if the software isn't doing what you need, then you can fix it yourself. Developers often act so helpless when it comes to dealing with bugs or missing features in their open source dependencies. Obviously that involves work, as you can't rely on some third party to maintain the software (or at least your fork) for you. On the other hand, you can't always rely on the vendor of proprietary software either. But at least in the open source model you can rely on yourself, and you can still incorporate any upstream improvements that do come along. In my view, if you are releasing software as open source then it should have "paid for itself" in some way. Perhaps it was internal software that is used at your company, or perhaps it was written to scratch your own itch. In either case, the work is done and the cost is paid, and you are just sharing it because there's no added cost to you and maybe someone else will benefit from having the source code. As a final note, it's not just the goodwill of open source maintainers that we are relying on - we also depend upon their desire for status. Being a maintainer of a popular open source project is high status, and something many people covet. That's why many maintainers will put in so much uncompensated time and put up with demanding users: they want the status that comes with having an "important" open source project. Smart maintainers will either learn how to profit from that status or learn how to tell demanding users (politely) to "fork off".

that_guy_iain 4y ago
> But at least in the open source model you can rely on yourself, and you can still incorporate any upstream improvements that do come along. Here comes the issue, what if it can't get incorporated upstream? You end up with your own custom fork. With third-party corporate code, you can nearly always pay for them to add a feature. Very rarely will a company say there is no price high enough for them to add a feature. This is so common that the pricing is pretty much standardised, nearly every company I've worked for when adding features for customers charge the same 1 thousand euros per developer day of work. Source available via BSL still allows for the modification of the code to customise it. So that benefit is still there. > In my view, if you are releasing software as open source then it should have "paid for itself" in some way. Perhaps it was internal software that is used at your company, or perhaps it was written to scratch your own itch. In either case, the work is done and the cost is paid, and you are just sharing it because there's no added cost to you and maybe someone else will benefit from having the source code. The real cost of software is maintaince. Updating it to keep it working with newer versions of x,y,z. etc. > As a final note, it's not just the goodwill of open source maintainers that we are relying on - we also depend upon their desire for status. Being a maintainer of a popular open source project is high status, and something many people covet. That's why many maintainers will put in so much uncompensated time and put up with demanding users: they want the status that comes with having an "important" open source project. Smart maintainers will either learn how to profit from that status or learn how to tell demanding users (politely) to "fork off". Not all projects are considered popular even though they're widely used. You may end up using a very rare but very important library to do something that not many people are doing. Not everything is sexy, especially when it comes to libraries you need for work.