4 ms·

> We have no obligation to pay their rent because they explicitly waived such desires. It's not about obligation. Nobody is claiming we're legally obliged to

> We have no obligation to pay their rent because they explicitly waived such desires. It's not about obligation. Nobody is claiming we're legally obliged to pay developers of free or open-source projects. It's about interest. As in it's in society's interest to pay for valuable infrastructure that's available to the public. As an example, consider weather data. It's a huge benefit to all sorts of people to have good weather and climate data. It supports not just the activity of citizens, but of many businesses. Are we obligated to pay for that? No. But is it in our interest to? Definitely. If we want things to be sustained, we need to make them sustainable. Otherwise, eventually the person in Nebraska will decide they have something better to do: https://xkcd.com/2347/ https://xkcd.com/2347/

Dalewyn 4y ago
>Are we obligated to pay for that? Seeing as NASA and NOAA are paid for by taxes, it actually is. Now with the (decidely American) pedantics aside... I agree with you in principle, but ultimately if people want to be paid they need to make that need or desire explicitly clear and on the record. Voluntary generosity can and will only go so far. If someone releases their code under free-as-in-libre and/or -beer licensing, they don't get to subsequently complain if acts of voluntary generosity are "insufficient".
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > If someone releases their code under free-as-in-libre and/or -beer licensing, they don't get to subsequently complain if acts of voluntary generosity are "insufficient". You are hitting shortcomings of copyright, rather than mistakes if the authors
- wpietri 4y ago
  Currently weather data is paid for by taxes. Although it hasn't always been, and it's currently under threat, so it's not a given going forward. But that's all beside the point. The point is that it is in society's interest to just pay for some things that are widely benefited from. Weather data's just one example. > if people want to be paid they need to make that need or desire explicitly clear and on the record Nope! > they don't get to subsequently complain Also nope! You are not a person who gets to decide that for everybody. A free license isn't a suicide pact or a ball gag. People can do things and then complain if it's not working out. Or not, as they prefer! But that too is beside the point. Which is that as a society we should figure out ways to support public goods like certain open-source software. Whether or not a given package maintainer asks.
williamscs 4y ago
I'm not sure if you purposely mentioned Nebraska only for the xkcd meme or because you knew the Air Force Weather Agency is based in Nebraska. https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104580/air-force-weather-agency/ https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1045...
- wpietri 4y ago
  I did not know, and that is pretty cool. Thanks for mentioning it.
thedriver 4y ago
Could it be possible to create an open-source license that allows hobbyists and researchers to use the software for free, but would require commercial users to pay? Or does something like this already exist? Of course, enforcing that might be pretty difficult in practice.
- fermigier 4y ago
  No, per Open Source Definition, item 5: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Certainly. Despite what some people might tell you, the only real requirement behind something being Open Source is that its Source code be Open for viewing. Nothing more, nothing less. There are plenty of "free for personal use; restrictions apply for commercial use" type products and licenses out there. To use a specific software example, almost all mods for Kerbal Space Program are open source with a "free for personal use, commercial use prohibited; redistribution prohibited" license. Also note how there are plenty of free-as-in-beer, closed source software out there. Commercial, open source software is simply a mirror opposite of them. Free-as-in-beer vs. Commercial, and Open vs. Closed source, are separate concepts that can co-exist in any combination.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    This is incorrect, by no means does the Open Source Definition require that source code be open for viewing by the public, only by recipients of the software. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      I never specified public viewing, nor does any code require the blessings of "Open Source Initiative" or their "Open Source Definition" to be open source code. Open source code is simply source code that is open. Nothing more and nothing less.

Dalewyn 4y ago

>Are we obligated to pay for that? Seeing as NASA and NOAA are paid for by taxes, it actually is. Now with the (decidely American) pedantics aside... I agree with you in principle, but ultimately if people want to be paid they need to make that need or desire explicitly clear and on the record. Voluntary generosity can and will only go so far. If someone releases their code under free-as-in-libre and/or -beer licensing, they don't get to subsequently complain if acts of voluntary generosity are "insufficient".

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> If someone releases their code under free-as-in-libre and/or -beer licensing, they don't get to subsequently complain if acts of voluntary generosity are "insufficient". You are hitting shortcomings of copyright, rather than mistakes if the authors
wpietri 4y ago
Currently weather data is paid for by taxes. Although it hasn't always been, and it's currently under threat, so it's not a given going forward. But that's all beside the point. The point is that it is in society's interest to just pay for some things that are widely benefited from. Weather data's just one example. > if people want to be paid they need to make that need or desire explicitly clear and on the record Nope! > they don't get to subsequently complain Also nope! You are not a person who gets to decide that for everybody. A free license isn't a suicide pact or a ball gag. People can do things and then complain if it's not working out. Or not, as they prefer! But that too is beside the point. Which is that as a society we should figure out ways to support public goods like certain open-source software. Whether or not a given package maintainer asks.

williamscs 4y ago

I'm not sure if you purposely mentioned Nebraska only for the xkcd meme or because you knew the Air Force Weather Agency is based in Nebraska. https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104580/air-force-weather-agency/ https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1045...

wpietri 4y ago
I did not know, and that is pretty cool. Thanks for mentioning it.

thedriver 4y ago

Could it be possible to create an open-source license that allows hobbyists and researchers to use the software for free, but would require commercial users to pay? Or does something like this already exist? Of course, enforcing that might be pretty difficult in practice.

fermigier 4y ago
No, per Open Source Definition, item 5: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
Dalewyn 4y ago
Certainly. Despite what some people might tell you, the only real requirement behind something being Open Source is that its Source code be Open for viewing. Nothing more, nothing less. There are plenty of "free for personal use; restrictions apply for commercial use" type products and licenses out there. To use a specific software example, almost all mods for Kerbal Space Program are open source with a "free for personal use, commercial use prohibited; redistribution prohibited" license. Also note how there are plenty of free-as-in-beer, closed source software out there. Commercial, open source software is simply a mirror opposite of them. Free-as-in-beer vs. Commercial, and Open vs. Closed source, are separate concepts that can co-exist in any combination.
- pabs3 4y ago
  This is incorrect, by no means does the Open Source Definition require that source code be open for viewing by the public, only by recipients of the software. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    I never specified public viewing, nor does any code require the blessings of "Open Source Initiative" or their "Open Source Definition" to be open source code. Open source code is simply source code that is open. Nothing more and nothing less.