4 ms·

the problem, in my opinion, introduced by the so-called full-time open source developers (making money via contributions) is the distortion in how free & open s

the problem, in my opinion, introduced by the so-called full-time open source developers (making money via contributions) is the distortion in how free & open source software should be organized. no one should have a full-time job maintaining an open source software, on their own. they should be doing in through a user-company. see the ruby and rails core team/structure for example. they all work full-time at companies with significant investment/commitment to the framework. they’re paid by these companies not randos paying money into some opencollective, patreon, &c. the javascript ecosystem sets and perpetuates a bad example here. it has sometimes even lead to accusations of leeching (see babel) where a ‘full-time’ maintainer who has honed the evil art of extortion refuses to kickback to the original creator-inventor or share proportionally with all contributors. or so the story goes. it’s imperative that we save open source from these evils. github sponsor, patreon, opencollective, tidelift, npm fund hurt, rather than help, the cause. they’re the sort of simple & straightforward ideas that make sense to simple-minded people, but eventually break under the messy rules and expectations of reality. if rails has succeeded without begging for money (even without starting a foundation) then, of course, their approach to free & open source software should be promoted.

schwartzworld 4y ago
What open source needs is to be completely owned by private companies?
- yawboakye 4y ago
  i'm not sure i understand what you mean. how's rails 'completely owned by private companies' for example? i'm not sure you wish to imply that private companies hiring and paying people to work full-time on open source equates to 'owning' such software. there's open source software started by and owned by private companies (the go programming language, apple's swift, meta's react, among other). regardless, they have big adopters. even so, i won't put rails or python or postgresql or rust in the same category.
  - schwartzworld 4y ago
    The direction that rails goes in is the direction that Basecamp wants it to go in. Basecamp is a privately owned company. Who do you think owns the IP? Look, no judgment for open source maintainers who take a job in order to get paid. But the idea that this is the only viable model for open source is abhorrent.
    - yawboakye 4y ago
      > The direction that rails goes in is the direction that Basecamp wants it to go in. Basecamp is a privately owned company. Who do you think owns the IP? it’s demonstrably false. both github and shopify have made significant contributions to the direction of rails. also individuals who were eventually hired by big rails/ruby users. i think such was the case for tenderlove and schneems for example. according to the rails license[0], dhh owns the ip. you could shift your perspective to see if this makes sense. companies heavily invested in certain open source projects hire (1) people already familiar with and have been contributing to the project, or (2) people totally new to the project but mandated to participate in maintenance and development given its a key infrastructure. this, imo, is how open source should be maintained: companies with skin the game commit to its survival. the current model of paying money to someone not in the employ of anyone (and so maybe doesn’t use the project themselves) is bound to lead to the current pay me or i abandon the project. [0]: https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/main/MIT-LICENSE https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/main/MIT-LICENSE

schwartzworld 4y ago

What open source needs is to be completely owned by private companies?

yawboakye 4y ago
i'm not sure i understand what you mean. how's rails 'completely owned by private companies' for example? i'm not sure you wish to imply that private companies hiring and paying people to work full-time on open source equates to 'owning' such software. there's open source software started by and owned by private companies (the go programming language, apple's swift, meta's react, among other). regardless, they have big adopters. even so, i won't put rails or python or postgresql or rust in the same category.
- schwartzworld 4y ago
  The direction that rails goes in is the direction that Basecamp wants it to go in. Basecamp is a privately owned company. Who do you think owns the IP? Look, no judgment for open source maintainers who take a job in order to get paid. But the idea that this is the only viable model for open source is abhorrent.
  - yawboakye 4y ago
    > The direction that rails goes in is the direction that Basecamp wants it to go in. Basecamp is a privately owned company. Who do you think owns the IP? it’s demonstrably false. both github and shopify have made significant contributions to the direction of rails. also individuals who were eventually hired by big rails/ruby users. i think such was the case for tenderlove and schneems for example. according to the rails license[0], dhh owns the ip. you could shift your perspective to see if this makes sense. companies heavily invested in certain open source projects hire (1) people already familiar with and have been contributing to the project, or (2) people totally new to the project but mandated to participate in maintenance and development given its a key infrastructure. this, imo, is how open source should be maintained: companies with skin the game commit to its survival. the current model of paying money to someone not in the employ of anyone (and so maybe doesn’t use the project themselves) is bound to lead to the current pay me or i abandon the project. [0]: https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/main/MIT-LICENSE https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/main/MIT-LICENSE