7 ms·

> Starting to notice a huge influx of OS projects not being funded and maintainers drop off of something that's valuable and their passionate about. It's unfort

> Starting to notice a huge influx of OS projects not being funded and maintainers drop off of something that's valuable and their passionate about. It's unfortunate. Why is it unfortunate? Mother nature is not kind. If an open source maintainer can’t pay their bills, maybe they should spend their time on something that does pay the bills.

gumballindie 3y ago
Yeah maybe those companies using their open source project should donate a little bit?
- sammyteee 3y ago
  Isn't the typical licensing model for open-source projects designed to differentiate between personal and commercial usage? Or is the real challenge that enforcing such licensing terms is practically unfeasible?
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    We use the Boost license which does not distinguish personal from commercial use. This is on purpose. We have no agenda for anyone's use of D. We are especially happy to hear from users who have made a lot of money from using D.
  - NegativeK 3y ago
    Open source business models differentiate by providing value to commercial entities (support, extended features, whatever.) Traditional open source licenses and definitions of open source demand that the licenses not differentiate between different use types (personal, commercial, governmental, etc.) Newer licenses are coming up that do differentiate. Traditional open source orgs are often saying that they're source available, not open source.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    No, they are not. And the most popular licenses (Apache-style) these days don't even require commercial entities that fork your project to contribute back their changes. Free software / copyleft licenses like the GPL which do require that are these days shunned by many. "Open source" has become synonymous with "free labour" for a lot of firms, and there's a whole class of SaaS projects which amount to gluing together other people's open source work and then supporting it. I think this was all fine for people during boom time; you built your resume up on GitHub, you got street cred, often your employer paid for you to work on it. But I think it's starting to lose its sheen for some people.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  Here at the D Language Foundation, we don't shame people into contributing. We point out how it is worth their while to donate.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    I’ll use this opportunity to say that D Lang is awesome and that I wish it gains wider adoption. I simply love that language and the community and I thank you for everything you do. On topic, indeed, shaming is never an option. But still I wish companies would donate to projects - in some countries there are even tax incentives to do so, and the benefit is that they essentially externalise development of a valuable tool for them. Also would earn a lot of good will - as steam does (while not sponsoring money directly).
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      It's the kind words from people like you that give us rocket fuel!
probablynish 3y ago
Steel manning here, the outcome is unfortunate because presumably these projects have positive externalities (benefits accruing to people other than other than whoever is paying, if anyone) and so the optimal funding for them from a social/aggregate point of view is greater than it currently is. That they are not funded enough is a case of market failure. Of course this doesn't contradict your point, that is fine for the maintainers to respond to these incentives. (Edit: to that end I agree with one of the main points of the article, developer's shouldn't be embarrassed about doing things for money, seeing as it's somewhat necessary for the world we live in).
voxl 3y ago
And maybe they should be funded by society enough to live. It's funny because this kind of social darwinism or capitalist world view is not the only possible way society could be successfully organized. Yet the (fallacious) appeal to "nature" would suggest that arbitrary monetary value is somehow the most important thing to optimize.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  > is not the only possible way society could be successfully organized True, if you have a rather low bar of success. Capitalism has produced wealth for average citizens inconceivable only a couple centuries ago. Even the poor in capitalist countries have a higher standard of living than medieval kings.
  - bheadmaster 3y ago
    > Even the poor in capitalist countries have a higher standard of living than medieval kings. That is almost completely due to technological progress, not because of capitalism itself.
    - WD40forRust 3y ago
      Capitalism is the nature in which technology got naturally selected.
      - bheadmaster 3y ago
        This sentence does not make any sense to me. Would you care to elaborate?
      - voxl 3y ago
        [citation needed] You know its funny because almost all academic advancement has not been in a capitalist system.
        WalterBright 3y ago
readyplayernull 3y ago
Monopolization is too slow, the goverment should force the fussion of every big tech company into a single entity that is forced to employ everyone in the country with great salaries and 4 hour workday, then people would have resources to do what's good. How would you like that MAANG?!

gumballindie 3y ago

Yeah maybe those companies using their open source project should donate a little bit?

sammyteee 3y ago
Isn't the typical licensing model for open-source projects designed to differentiate between personal and commercial usage? Or is the real challenge that enforcing such licensing terms is practically unfeasible?
- WalterBright 3y ago
  We use the Boost license which does not distinguish personal from commercial use. This is on purpose. We have no agenda for anyone's use of D. We are especially happy to hear from users who have made a lot of money from using D.
- NegativeK 3y ago
  Open source business models differentiate by providing value to commercial entities (support, extended features, whatever.) Traditional open source licenses and definitions of open source demand that the licenses not differentiate between different use types (personal, commercial, governmental, etc.) Newer licenses are coming up that do differentiate. Traditional open source orgs are often saying that they're source available, not open source.
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  No, they are not. And the most popular licenses (Apache-style) these days don't even require commercial entities that fork your project to contribute back their changes. Free software / copyleft licenses like the GPL which do require that are these days shunned by many. "Open source" has become synonymous with "free labour" for a lot of firms, and there's a whole class of SaaS projects which amount to gluing together other people's open source work and then supporting it. I think this was all fine for people during boom time; you built your resume up on GitHub, you got street cred, often your employer paid for you to work on it. But I think it's starting to lose its sheen for some people.
WalterBright 3y ago
Here at the D Language Foundation, we don't shame people into contributing. We point out how it is worth their while to donate.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  I’ll use this opportunity to say that D Lang is awesome and that I wish it gains wider adoption. I simply love that language and the community and I thank you for everything you do. On topic, indeed, shaming is never an option. But still I wish companies would donate to projects - in some countries there are even tax incentives to do so, and the benefit is that they essentially externalise development of a valuable tool for them. Also would earn a lot of good will - as steam does (while not sponsoring money directly).
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    It's the kind words from people like you that give us rocket fuel!

probablynish 3y ago

Steel manning here, the outcome is unfortunate because presumably these projects have positive externalities (benefits accruing to people other than other than whoever is paying, if anyone) and so the optimal funding for them from a social/aggregate point of view is greater than it currently is. That they are not funded enough is a case of market failure. Of course this doesn't contradict your point, that is fine for the maintainers to respond to these incentives. (Edit: to that end I agree with one of the main points of the article, developer's shouldn't be embarrassed about doing things for money, seeing as it's somewhat necessary for the world we live in).

voxl 3y ago

And maybe they should be funded by society enough to live. It's funny because this kind of social darwinism or capitalist world view is not the only possible way society could be successfully organized. Yet the (fallacious) appeal to "nature" would suggest that arbitrary monetary value is somehow the most important thing to optimize.

WalterBright 3y ago
> is not the only possible way society could be successfully organized True, if you have a rather low bar of success. Capitalism has produced wealth for average citizens inconceivable only a couple centuries ago. Even the poor in capitalist countries have a higher standard of living than medieval kings.
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  > Even the poor in capitalist countries have a higher standard of living than medieval kings. That is almost completely due to technological progress, not because of capitalism itself.
  - WD40forRust 3y ago
    Capitalism is the nature in which technology got naturally selected.
    - bheadmaster 3y ago
      This sentence does not make any sense to me. Would you care to elaborate?
    - voxl 3y ago
      [citation needed] You know its funny because almost all academic advancement has not been in a capitalist system.
      - WalterBright 3y ago

readyplayernull 3y ago

Monopolization is too slow, the goverment should force the fussion of every big tech company into a single entity that is forced to employ everyone in the country with great salaries and 4 hour workday, then people would have resources to do what's good. How would you like that MAANG?!