4 ms·

You're basically asking if software being FOSS or not would change the amount of contributions? For myself, I only contribute to FOSS just because it is FOSS.

You're basically asking if software being FOSS or not would change the amount of contributions? For myself, I only contribute to FOSS just because it is FOSS. If I know it won't be FOSS in the future, I wouldn't contribute to it. I'm not interested in spending my time working for free for some company if I think they'll end up saying "Hey, actually, this thing you've contributed to, we've decided not everyone should equally be able to run this, so it won't be FOSS anymore, but thanks for the help". > or with director level decision makers at companies I've worked with That makes sense. I don't think there is a ton of "director level decision makers" people who are actually involved in writing FOSS on a day to day basis, and also aren't the ones carrying the ecosystem on their back.

LAC-Tech 3y ago
I guess I focused on 'adopt' over contribute' in the thing I quoted.
- capableweb 3y ago
  Ah, but wouldn't less people eventually adopt it if fewer contributed to it? Opposite is true as well I suppose.
  - bruce511 3y ago
    Adoption and contribution are not aligned. Cue xkcd so cliche by now I don't even need to link to it. The OSS Community is full of projects that are both immensely popular and yet maintained by individuals or very small numbers of contributors.
pydry 3y ago
>I'm not interested in spending my time working for free for some company if I think they'll end up saying "Hey, actually, this thing you've contributed to, we've decided not everyone should equally be able to run this, so it won't be FOSS anymore, but thanks for the help". Thats nice but realistically paid labor gets more done than free labor. A lot of FOSS dies through neglect that wouldnt happen if someone was paid to work on it. For which a business model is required.
- capableweb 3y ago
  > Thats nice but realistically this project only gets maintained because somebody gets paid to work on it Why is that "realistic" while FOSS maintainers working on software for the love of FOSS isn't realistic? Not too long ago, the only ones working on FOSS were unpaid developers, at all.
  - pydry 3y ago
    Unpaid maintenance time on FOSS is not an abundant resource. Doubly so for projects that experience a high rate of bitrot.
pessimizer 3y ago
If you contribute to a Free software project under a GPL, unless you sign over your copyright they won't be able to relicense it, other than to a later, more restrictive version of the GPL. The reason open source gets relicensed is because it can be, by anyone, as long as they follow whatever minimal attribution rules are associated with the particular license. It isn't just Hashicorp that could relicense all of their products from now forward - you could too, for your own personal editions. So, mostly no need to add the F to OSS when talking about this particular danger. Although moving to later GPLs has definitely upset people in the past, moving to proprietary (or ideosyncratic) licensing is different. The disputes about moving to later GPLs are about what code people will be forced to share in order to continue using the software in the way they're accustomed to, not about making competition a license violation.

LAC-Tech 3y ago

I guess I focused on 'adopt' over contribute' in the thing I quoted.

capableweb 3y ago
Ah, but wouldn't less people eventually adopt it if fewer contributed to it? Opposite is true as well I suppose.
- bruce511 3y ago
  Adoption and contribution are not aligned. Cue xkcd so cliche by now I don't even need to link to it. The OSS Community is full of projects that are both immensely popular and yet maintained by individuals or very small numbers of contributors.

pydry 3y ago

>I'm not interested in spending my time working for free for some company if I think they'll end up saying "Hey, actually, this thing you've contributed to, we've decided not everyone should equally be able to run this, so it won't be FOSS anymore, but thanks for the help". Thats nice but realistically paid labor gets more done than free labor. A lot of FOSS dies through neglect that wouldnt happen if someone was paid to work on it. For which a business model is required.

capableweb 3y ago
> Thats nice but realistically this project only gets maintained because somebody gets paid to work on it Why is that "realistic" while FOSS maintainers working on software for the love of FOSS isn't realistic? Not too long ago, the only ones working on FOSS were unpaid developers, at all.
- pydry 3y ago
  Unpaid maintenance time on FOSS is not an abundant resource. Doubly so for projects that experience a high rate of bitrot.

pessimizer 3y ago

If you contribute to a Free software project under a GPL, unless you sign over your copyright they won't be able to relicense it, other than to a later, more restrictive version of the GPL. The reason open source gets relicensed is because it can be, by anyone, as long as they follow whatever minimal attribution rules are associated with the particular license. It isn't just Hashicorp that could relicense all of their products from now forward - you could too, for your own personal editions. So, mostly no need to add the F to OSS when talking about this particular danger. Although moving to later GPLs has definitely upset people in the past, moving to proprietary (or ideosyncratic) licensing is different. The disputes about moving to later GPLs are about what code people will be forced to share in order to continue using the software in the way they're accustomed to, not about making competition a license violation.