3 ms·

For me, neither side needs to 'win' but people should understand the facts on ground when they adopt a project for their needs. "Open Source" isn't the full st

For me, neither side needs to 'win' but people should understand the facts on ground when they adopt a project for their needs. "Open Source" isn't the full story, you need to consider the motivations or potential motivations of a project's backers. I think there's a real grievance to be had by projects that were formerly open source, solicited contributions from non-paid volunteers, and then change licensing models. Maybe those people were ill-informed, and shouldn't have contributed in the first place, and this article is trying to publicize the ramifications of a projects stewardship.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> I think there's a real grievance to be had by projects that were formerly open source, solicited contributions from non-paid volunteers, and then change licensing models. It's definitely possible to take advantage of volunteerism, but in this case I don't see the real issue. The project remains just as open as it ever was, even upon licence change. It can be forked, and the project might change name, but that's all. It's not the nicest outcome, but it's the same as if a sole owner just decides to stop working on a project. The only thing to do is fork and move on.
rglover 2y ago
> I think there's a real grievance to be had by projects that were formerly open source, solicited contributions from non-paid volunteers, and then change licensing models. I think that's the crux of the frustration and fair. But at the same time, the previous version before the license change can still be forked/the contributions are intact so is there a tangible loss or just an emotional one?
- gmueckl 2y ago
  This can be a very real loss. Third party contributions are driven by specific needs. When the license changes too much, those third parties can either pay for a fork (with money/time investment) and improve their own modifications or get the enhancements in the upstream product without any improvements of their own. There is a middle ground with paid source code access, but I don't see a lot of commercial offerings do that.

robertlagrant 2y ago

> I think there's a real grievance to be had by projects that were formerly open source, solicited contributions from non-paid volunteers, and then change licensing models. It's definitely possible to take advantage of volunteerism, but in this case I don't see the real issue. The project remains just as open as it ever was, even upon licence change. It can be forked, and the project might change name, but that's all. It's not the nicest outcome, but it's the same as if a sole owner just decides to stop working on a project. The only thing to do is fork and move on.

rglover 2y ago

> I think there's a real grievance to be had by projects that were formerly open source, solicited contributions from non-paid volunteers, and then change licensing models. I think that's the crux of the frustration and fair. But at the same time, the previous version before the license change can still be forked/the contributions are intact so is there a tangible loss or just an emotional one?

gmueckl 2y ago
This can be a very real loss. Third party contributions are driven by specific needs. When the license changes too much, those third parties can either pay for a fork (with money/time investment) and improve their own modifications or get the enhancements in the upstream product without any improvements of their own. There is a middle ground with paid source code access, but I don't see a lot of commercial offerings do that.