5 ms·

I want my worst enemies to be able to use my open source code against me and my competitors to be able to re-purpose it to try and drive me out of business. Whe

by andy99 3y ago

I want my worst enemies to be able to use my open source code against me and my competitors to be able to re-purpose it to try and drive me out of business. When I want to write code with different restrictions, I do that and I don't call it open source. If people want to create and promote their own utopian models that's their business. Personally I'd want nothing to do with that, and it definitely should not be called open source, just like any restrictive license. On another note, a transaction is a meeting of the minds. When most people release open source software they want nothing in return and are owed nothing. That's how I feel about it. People who think they are owed something are like beggars who do miming or some such in the street and call it work. Nobody asked for it, some find it interesting and you might be able to guilt someone into paying but they didn't hire you and don't owe you anything. You can just not do it, it's only a job if you're explicitly hired.

kriro9jdjfif 3y ago
The act of defining limits on language associations is putting obligations on others. No one cares to help you define or realize your semantic utopia either. Language associations will always be mutable; that’s my utopia. You can pound sand trying to demand others speech be constrained by your sensibilities. Exist in a religious-like state of biology where your mental model is essential, some kind of immutable linked list? No thanks. Edit: note I made the same argument in different language. So much for the OPs premise holding water. People do care how others label things and the aggregate will make OP beholden to that. Good luck living your bespoke utopia OP.
echelon 3y ago
> I want my worst enemies to be able to use my open source code against me and my competitors to be able to re-purpose it to try and drive me out of business. Even when it's the ten trillion dollar combined market cap of FAANG (or whatever we call them now)? Because that's not open source. That's free labor suicide.
- shikon7 3y ago
  Even then, either you discriminate, or you don’t. And they’re not really the worst one could think of, as FAANG thenselves contribute a lot to open source software.
  - sixstringtheory 3y ago
    > FAANG thenselves contribute a lot to open source software The salaries of the people who work on those projects are paid by the revenue streams generated by the companies.
    - saagarjha 3y ago
      How else would it work?
      - antonvs 3y ago
        ...in a capitalist society. There are systems other than capitalism.
        sixstringtheory 3y ago
        What is an example of a noncapitalist society with an open source software scene?
        antonvs 3y ago
        What is it that you want to know? The point is that in a society with a more socialist or communist approach, "ownership" of software can work entirely differently. What the FSF calls "free software" and what OSI calls "open source" are essentially mechanisms for implementing such approaches in a capitalist context, in which the abstraction of "intellectual property" is enshrined in law.
        3y ago
wavemode 3y ago
I also generally feel like most of the really substantial open-source projects are able to get a good amount of donations and corporate sponsors. People DO pay, when the thing you're creating (an operating system, a programming language, a database) is complex and business-critical. But nowadays it seems like everyone who creates a JavaScript package that concats two strings together, wants to be able to quit their day job and live on donations. It's just not realistic.
- evantbyrne 3y ago
  Your feelings don't match reality. Very few people are earning good wages by building open-source software, even though there is no shortage of important projects. Most money being made is from side-hustles, which are jobs in of themselves.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Most money being made comes from people working full time as developers on open source in their day jobs.
  - wavemode 3y ago
    I'm genuinely curious which specific projects you're referring to, that are both highly important and also unable to secure donations.
    - evantbyrne 3y ago
      A better question is which projects are actually paying all or most of their major contributors industry rates based on donations? It seems like the word "important" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your statement. I bet even for the projects you have in mind that most contributors never receive a cent, and the major contributors have only received compensation for a fraction of their work if calculated at industry rates. A quick look at open collective should show you how little money there is to be made in open-sourcing code in of itself.
      - 3y ago
fsckboy 3y ago
> should not be called open source, just like any restrictive license are you saying that licenses that guarantee users' permission to see the source code even if it's reused are "open source" licenses, and whereas licenses that allow code to be reused and distributed without allowing users to see that source are restrictive and not open source? I agree.
emodendroket 3y ago
Isn't the whole point of the "open source" label avoiding all the idealism and business-spooking potential that comes with "free software" label? Of course that also includes some of the things you're talking about.
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
"People who think they are owed something are _like_ beggars who do miming or some such in the street and call it work. Nobody asked for it, some find it interesting and you might be able to guilt someone into paying but they didn't hire you and don't owe you anything. You can just not do it, it's only a job if you're explicitly hired." NB. This statement is not suggesting anyone is a beggar. It is suggesting people can behave _like_ beggars by doing "work" without being hired. This is what so-called "tech" companies do. They create websites not because they have something to share but to observe traffic and web user behaviour, to collect data, and to act as an unrequested intermediary. They have no content that they themselves have produced. They get in front of and in between people trying to do stuff over the internet. "Let me help you with that." But nobody asked for it. Sometimes HN commenters try to guilt people into paying for "subscriptions" from an intermediary in order to view publicly shared content. These companies never intended to pay anyone for content. Facebook/Meta and Google/Alphabet have been reluctant to pay for news. When new organisations asked for payment, HN commenters called this "blackmail." Then Elon Musk accused corporations of "blackmail" when they decided not to run ads on Twitter/X. Even the venerable volunteer-powered Wikipedia keeps asking for donations when its costs have been met and its employees are taking six figure "salaries". Today we learned that after lengthy negotiations OpenAI did not want to pay the NYT for their content. And so, the NYT has sued.
- bawolff 3y ago
  I don't recall any of these companies begging. Don't want to use facebook et al? Then don't use them.
eslaught 3y ago
Maybe open source means different things to different people? To me, open source isn't a transaction (even one with "nothing owed" as it were), as much as a community. What I get from participating in open source is to be a part of that community. You just don't get the same interactions working on a closed-source, proprietary code, no matter how deep and rigorous your process is. Ironically, I have stronger bonds with some of my collaborators at other companies/institutions than I do in my own, and that's all thanks to open source. The fact that some of these open source communities happen to have built world-class software that is used by FAANGs and Fortune 500 companies is cool and a testament to the power of this process. But it's also sort of tangential. And I think we're missing something when we reduce open source down to the licenses and code transfer, as if that's all it is.
- HideousKojima 3y ago
  >Maybe open source means different things to different people? Sure, but when there's a widely accepted definition and you aren't making efforts to clearly distinguish your usage of the term from the common usage, then you're just trying to take advantage of all of the linguist context and baggage associated with the common meaning while actually meaning something completely different. In other words, you want the goodwill that comes from being open source without any of the responsibility and obligation.
m463 3y ago
> When most people release open source software they want nothing in return and are owed nothing. sort of depends on the license. GPL software is usually released to the benefit of the user, but the author passes on responsibility so that the rights are preserved when it is redistributed.
bryanrasmussen 3y ago
>it's only a job if you're explicitly hired sure, but an entrepreneurial effort is one that is done without requirement of reward but expectation of being able to derive reward. It seems a lot of what is called open source is done under an entrepreneurial model, the same as much writing, mimes on the street, or a million other things.
ric2b 3y ago
I also want more open-source code to exist, and that's why I want modifications of my code to also be open-source, at least to whoever is using those modifications.
ksec 3y ago
I am ( sort of ) surprised this is top voted comment. But for most of the time, >and my competitors to be able to re-purpose it to try and drive me out of business..... When most people release open source software they want nothing in return and are owed nothing. That's how I feel about it. That was not what Open Source was about on HN. Since that would exclude GPL, and APGL. And there were even hint of movement that BSD and MIT would not be considered as Open Source. And any license that does not form and benefits the communities does not fit into the definition of Open Source. Somewhat fortunately, that seems to have die down a bit. And judging by upvote on your post I guess there are still the silent majority that agrees with you.
gizmo 3y ago
Your description of open source sounds like Public Domain. Take it or leave it, do whatever, as is. I personally don’t think an environment where nobody owes anybody anything is conductive to building great software. When every individual is encouraged to optimize for their own benefit (max selfishness) you don’t get the best outcomes for society.

by andy99 3y ago

kriro9jdjfif 3y ago

The act of defining limits on language associations is putting obligations on others. No one cares to help you define or realize your semantic utopia either. Language associations will always be mutable; that’s my utopia. You can pound sand trying to demand others speech be constrained by your sensibilities. Exist in a religious-like state of biology where your mental model is essential, some kind of immutable linked list? No thanks. Edit: note I made the same argument in different language. So much for the OPs premise holding water. People do care how others label things and the aggregate will make OP beholden to that. Good luck living your bespoke utopia OP.

echelon 3y ago

> I want my worst enemies to be able to use my open source code against me and my competitors to be able to re-purpose it to try and drive me out of business. Even when it's the ten trillion dollar combined market cap of FAANG (or whatever we call them now)? Because that's not open source. That's free labor suicide.

shikon7 3y ago
Even then, either you discriminate, or you don’t. And they’re not really the worst one could think of, as FAANG thenselves contribute a lot to open source software.
- sixstringtheory 3y ago
  > FAANG thenselves contribute a lot to open source software The salaries of the people who work on those projects are paid by the revenue streams generated by the companies.
  - saagarjha 3y ago
    How else would it work?
    - antonvs 3y ago
      ...in a capitalist society. There are systems other than capitalism.
      - sixstringtheory 3y ago
        What is an example of a noncapitalist society with an open source software scene?
        antonvs 3y ago
        What is it that you want to know? The point is that in a society with a more socialist or communist approach, "ownership" of software can work entirely differently. What the FSF calls "free software" and what OSI calls "open source" are essentially mechanisms for implementing such approaches in a capitalist context, in which the abstraction of "intellectual property" is enshrined in law.
        3y ago

wavemode 3y ago

I also generally feel like most of the really substantial open-source projects are able to get a good amount of donations and corporate sponsors. People DO pay, when the thing you're creating (an operating system, a programming language, a database) is complex and business-critical. But nowadays it seems like everyone who creates a JavaScript package that concats two strings together, wants to be able to quit their day job and live on donations. It's just not realistic.

evantbyrne 3y ago
Your feelings don't match reality. Very few people are earning good wages by building open-source software, even though there is no shortage of important projects. Most money being made is from side-hustles, which are jobs in of themselves.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Most money being made comes from people working full time as developers on open source in their day jobs.
- wavemode 3y ago
  I'm genuinely curious which specific projects you're referring to, that are both highly important and also unable to secure donations.
  - evantbyrne 3y ago
    A better question is which projects are actually paying all or most of their major contributors industry rates based on donations? It seems like the word "important" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your statement. I bet even for the projects you have in mind that most contributors never receive a cent, and the major contributors have only received compensation for a fraction of their work if calculated at industry rates. A quick look at open collective should show you how little money there is to be made in open-sourcing code in of itself.
    - 3y ago

fsckboy 3y ago

> should not be called open source, just like any restrictive license are you saying that licenses that guarantee users' permission to see the source code even if it's reused are "open source" licenses, and whereas licenses that allow code to be reused and distributed without allowing users to see that source are restrictive and not open source? I agree.

emodendroket 3y ago

Isn't the whole point of the "open source" label avoiding all the idealism and business-spooking potential that comes with "free software" label? Of course that also includes some of the things you're talking about.

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

"People who think they are owed something are _like_ beggars who do miming or some such in the street and call it work. Nobody asked for it, some find it interesting and you might be able to guilt someone into paying but they didn't hire you and don't owe you anything. You can just not do it, it's only a job if you're explicitly hired." NB. This statement is not suggesting anyone is a beggar. It is suggesting people can behave _like_ beggars by doing "work" without being hired. This is what so-called "tech" companies do. They create websites not because they have something to share but to observe traffic and web user behaviour, to collect data, and to act as an unrequested intermediary. They have no content that they themselves have produced. They get in front of and in between people trying to do stuff over the internet. "Let me help you with that." But nobody asked for it. Sometimes HN commenters try to guilt people into paying for "subscriptions" from an intermediary in order to view publicly shared content. These companies never intended to pay anyone for content. Facebook/Meta and Google/Alphabet have been reluctant to pay for news. When new organisations asked for payment, HN commenters called this "blackmail." Then Elon Musk accused corporations of "blackmail" when they decided not to run ads on Twitter/X. Even the venerable volunteer-powered Wikipedia keeps asking for donations when its costs have been met and its employees are taking six figure "salaries". Today we learned that after lengthy negotiations OpenAI did not want to pay the NYT for their content. And so, the NYT has sued.

bawolff 3y ago
I don't recall any of these companies begging. Don't want to use facebook et al? Then don't use them.

eslaught 3y ago

Maybe open source means different things to different people? To me, open source isn't a transaction (even one with "nothing owed" as it were), as much as a community. What I get from participating in open source is to be a part of that community. You just don't get the same interactions working on a closed-source, proprietary code, no matter how deep and rigorous your process is. Ironically, I have stronger bonds with some of my collaborators at other companies/institutions than I do in my own, and that's all thanks to open source. The fact that some of these open source communities happen to have built world-class software that is used by FAANGs and Fortune 500 companies is cool and a testament to the power of this process. But it's also sort of tangential. And I think we're missing something when we reduce open source down to the licenses and code transfer, as if that's all it is.

HideousKojima 3y ago
>Maybe open source means different things to different people? Sure, but when there's a widely accepted definition and you aren't making efforts to clearly distinguish your usage of the term from the common usage, then you're just trying to take advantage of all of the linguist context and baggage associated with the common meaning while actually meaning something completely different. In other words, you want the goodwill that comes from being open source without any of the responsibility and obligation.

m463 3y ago

> When most people release open source software they want nothing in return and are owed nothing. sort of depends on the license. GPL software is usually released to the benefit of the user, but the author passes on responsibility so that the rights are preserved when it is redistributed.

bryanrasmussen 3y ago

>it's only a job if you're explicitly hired sure, but an entrepreneurial effort is one that is done without requirement of reward but expectation of being able to derive reward. It seems a lot of what is called open source is done under an entrepreneurial model, the same as much writing, mimes on the street, or a million other things.

ric2b 3y ago

I also want more open-source code to exist, and that's why I want modifications of my code to also be open-source, at least to whoever is using those modifications.

ksec 3y ago

I am ( sort of ) surprised this is top voted comment. But for most of the time, >and my competitors to be able to re-purpose it to try and drive me out of business..... When most people release open source software they want nothing in return and are owed nothing. That's how I feel about it. That was not what Open Source was about on HN. Since that would exclude GPL, and APGL. And there were even hint of movement that BSD and MIT would not be considered as Open Source. And any license that does not form and benefits the communities does not fit into the definition of Open Source. Somewhat fortunately, that seems to have die down a bit. And judging by upvote on your post I guess there are still the silent majority that agrees with you.

gizmo 3y ago

Your description of open source sounds like Public Domain. Take it or leave it, do whatever, as is. I personally don’t think an environment where nobody owes anybody anything is conductive to building great software. When every individual is encouraged to optimize for their own benefit (max selfishness) you don’t get the best outcomes for society.