4 ms·

> None of these blogposts (including this one) have any realistic solution to the problem of making OSS software and being able to live from it... Should OSS s

> None of these blogposts (including this one) have any realistic solution to the problem of making OSS software and being able to live from it... Should OSS solve that "problem"? Free software predates billion-dollar OSS / open-core companies, it also doesn't require the maintainer directly earn a living from it. Perhaps the era of OSS megacorps and the concomitant VC/startup dreams is setting, as these large, formerly OSS companies are rejecting OSS licenses in favor of bigger profits. To that, I say good riddance, not every useful git repository has to be incorporated. > ...and prevent others from exploiting you in the process. The whole point of free and open source software is anyone can use it and improve it - including Amazon and the person you hate. An OSS license is not a growth-hack for adoption: if you want to discourage Amazon from using your product, use AGPL. If you're worried others won't use your AGPL software, then you're growth-hacking. FL/OSS will be fine between evening/weekend hackers (xz), small-to-medium companies/consultancies (Rails), and our neo-feudal tech overlords (React).

Pannoniae 3y ago
>Should OSS solve that "problem"? If you don't want a cyberpunk-like dystopia of megacorps controlling everything, yes. This is not just affecting the VC-funded startups' profitability but it also affects ordinary software developers' lifestyle businesses too. Sure, the core principles of OSS don't require that you'd be able to earn money from your work, but then perhaps it is OSS which is not fit for purpose, not the desire to earn money from creating software. >if you want to discourage Amazon from using your product, use AGPL. The AGPL is still not restrictive enough because you can resell the software without contributing anything back if you don't modify it. Stuff like the SSPL or the Commons Clause are much better to prevent that kind of exploitation. >FL/OSS will be fine between evening/weekend hackers (xz), small-to-medium companies/consultancies (Rails), and our neo-feudal tech overlords (React). I find the xz example especially funny because that shows how it is very much not fine. Single developer, burnt out, not getting paid a penny for his thankless work, a bunch of state-sponsored actors pressure him to hand his project over -> backdoor injected. If Lasse Collin could get support for his project, this almost certainly would not have happened. https://xkcd.com/2347/ https://xkcd.com/2347/ is very relevant here.
- prepend 3y ago
  > The AGPL is still not restrictive enough because you can resell the software without contributing anything back if you don't modify it Why would you want to restrict reselling? If you want free software then you’re going to have reselling. If you don’t want reselling, then don’t make your software free/open source. I’m not sure why people are getting mixed up. Anyone can make proprietary software and restrict all they want. There’s tons of commercial software. But it doesn’t have the features of free/open source.
  - Pannoniae 3y ago
    >Why would you want to restrict reselling? Depends on what your philosophy is. You believe in the software commons and the free sharing of software? You would want software to remain as a public good so no one can profit from it exclusively. Are you a business who made some software? You don't want others to resell it because it's your work, you made it and you don't want others to freeload. >If you don’t want reselling, then don’t make your software free/open source. Sure, and the consequences of this will be much more all-rights-reserved proprietary software. A huge loss to users and developers. >But it doesn’t have the features of free/open source. Yes it does. Just because it doesn't conform to all tenets of the OSI definition, many useful things are still kept. The most obvious is the right to view the source code - which is highly liberating in an age where many vendors lock their systems down or try to offer everything as a SaaS where you don't even see the binaries. You usually also have the right to modify the software under most of these licences - you are the user but you find a bug in the software, you don't need to wait for the vendor to fix it, you can fix it and share your modifications to other users (either paid or not). You can also have the right to contribute changes if contributions are allowed, which is also a positive for everyone. There are many freedoms which can be granted without necessarily going for a maximalist open-source approach but still preserving the right to exploit your own work and prevent others from exploiting it.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - 3y ago

Pannoniae 3y ago

>Should OSS solve that "problem"? If you don't want a cyberpunk-like dystopia of megacorps controlling everything, yes. This is not just affecting the VC-funded startups' profitability but it also affects ordinary software developers' lifestyle businesses too. Sure, the core principles of OSS don't require that you'd be able to earn money from your work, but then perhaps it is OSS which is not fit for purpose, not the desire to earn money from creating software. >if you want to discourage Amazon from using your product, use AGPL. The AGPL is still not restrictive enough because you can resell the software without contributing anything back if you don't modify it. Stuff like the SSPL or the Commons Clause are much better to prevent that kind of exploitation. >FL/OSS will be fine between evening/weekend hackers (xz), small-to-medium companies/consultancies (Rails), and our neo-feudal tech overlords (React). I find the xz example especially funny because that shows how it is very much not fine. Single developer, burnt out, not getting paid a penny for his thankless work, a bunch of state-sponsored actors pressure him to hand his project over -> backdoor injected. If Lasse Collin could get support for his project, this almost certainly would not have happened. https://xkcd.com/2347/ https://xkcd.com/2347/ is very relevant here.

prepend 3y ago
> The AGPL is still not restrictive enough because you can resell the software without contributing anything back if you don't modify it Why would you want to restrict reselling? If you want free software then you’re going to have reselling. If you don’t want reselling, then don’t make your software free/open source. I’m not sure why people are getting mixed up. Anyone can make proprietary software and restrict all they want. There’s tons of commercial software. But it doesn’t have the features of free/open source.
- Pannoniae 3y ago
  >Why would you want to restrict reselling? Depends on what your philosophy is. You believe in the software commons and the free sharing of software? You would want software to remain as a public good so no one can profit from it exclusively. Are you a business who made some software? You don't want others to resell it because it's your work, you made it and you don't want others to freeload. >If you don’t want reselling, then don’t make your software free/open source. Sure, and the consequences of this will be much more all-rights-reserved proprietary software. A huge loss to users and developers. >But it doesn’t have the features of free/open source. Yes it does. Just because it doesn't conform to all tenets of the OSI definition, many useful things are still kept. The most obvious is the right to view the source code - which is highly liberating in an age where many vendors lock their systems down or try to offer everything as a SaaS where you don't even see the binaries. You usually also have the right to modify the software under most of these licences - you are the user but you find a bug in the software, you don't need to wait for the vendor to fix it, you can fix it and share your modifications to other users (either paid or not). You can also have the right to contribute changes if contributions are allowed, which is also a positive for everyone. There are many freedoms which can be granted without necessarily going for a maximalist open-source approach but still preserving the right to exploit your own work and prevent others from exploiting it.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - 3y ago