3 ms·

So? Why does a business have an obligation to give away their intellectual property for free? When you submit a PR to a business’s intellectual property, it’s s

So? Why does a business have an obligation to give away their intellectual property for free? When you submit a PR to a business’s intellectual property, it’s still theirs. The years go by and the beggar attitude of open source users gets more and more tiring.

dartos 2y ago
Open source contributors don’t get paid for their contributions, but gitea org does. Expecting your volunteer contributions to not get paywalled is not a beggar attitude… Gitea specifically has a track record of taking advantage of the good will of open source contributors, which is why the forgejo fork exists.
- techknowlogick 2y ago
  I commented here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41514547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41514547, but CommitGo was founded to ensure the longevity of the Gitea project. Due to the formation of the company more maintainers have been able to be paid for their time, and bounties/contracted work etc.. all go straight to the project.
gjsman-1000 2y ago
[flagged]
- idle_zealot 2y ago
  I think our ancestors would be aghast at our legal system that has outlawed the propagation of culture and knowledge without paying tariffs to whoever "owns" the relevant ideas.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    One glance at how much censorship there was historically, especially after the invention of the printing press; and I think you'll find this notion rather fanciful.
- collingreen 2y ago
  This reads like "eat your dinner; there are starving kids in <FOREIGN COUNTRY>" which hints at a valid point but even the toddlers know isn't a good argument. Calling people greedy solely because "it could be worse" is rude and misanthropic. Calling them greedy for wanting a bounty-funded, community contribution to be merged into the community version not just the paywall version is ridiculous to me. Maybe the "shocking revelation" about the open source community is how easily some turn to corporate bootlicking.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    My rant was in general, not against this specific issue, just as I believe the OP's post is. Yeah, taking advantage of volunteer work, not a great thing even if legal. On the other hand, the unsympathetic side of me says, "That's the license; those are the rules of the game which everyone voluntarily agreed to; and you don't have to like how some people play the game." There's no place in FOSS licenses for "Rule #7: Don't do anything that isn't nice."
    - tempfile 2y ago
      > My rant was general, not against this specific issue Sure, and the comment you're replying to also explained the error in your argument in general. Being privileged and exploited are not mutually exclusive. "those are the rules of the game" is not very far from saying "everything that is possible is fair". It's the logic of a bully.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
tempfile 2y ago
It's hard to distinguish this comment from a troll response. But just to deal with the factual claim: > When you submit a PR to a business’s intellectual property, it’s still theirs. Nope, contributions do not "belong" to the receiving project unless explicitly agreed so. They were created under a license, and are (usually) reciprocally licensed to the project. The owner is and always was the contributor. To call someone a beggar for asking for their code back is beyond belief.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

dartos 2y ago

Open source contributors don’t get paid for their contributions, but gitea org does. Expecting your volunteer contributions to not get paywalled is not a beggar attitude… Gitea specifically has a track record of taking advantage of the good will of open source contributors, which is why the forgejo fork exists.

techknowlogick 2y ago
I commented here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41514547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41514547, but CommitGo was founded to ensure the longevity of the Gitea project. Due to the formation of the company more maintainers have been able to be paid for their time, and bounties/contracted work etc.. all go straight to the project.

gjsman-1000 2y ago

[flagged]

idle_zealot 2y ago
I think our ancestors would be aghast at our legal system that has outlawed the propagation of culture and knowledge without paying tariffs to whoever "owns" the relevant ideas.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  One glance at how much censorship there was historically, especially after the invention of the printing press; and I think you'll find this notion rather fanciful.
collingreen 2y ago
This reads like "eat your dinner; there are starving kids in <FOREIGN COUNTRY>" which hints at a valid point but even the toddlers know isn't a good argument. Calling people greedy solely because "it could be worse" is rude and misanthropic. Calling them greedy for wanting a bounty-funded, community contribution to be merged into the community version not just the paywall version is ridiculous to me. Maybe the "shocking revelation" about the open source community is how easily some turn to corporate bootlicking.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  My rant was in general, not against this specific issue, just as I believe the OP's post is. Yeah, taking advantage of volunteer work, not a great thing even if legal. On the other hand, the unsympathetic side of me says, "That's the license; those are the rules of the game which everyone voluntarily agreed to; and you don't have to like how some people play the game." There's no place in FOSS licenses for "Rule #7: Don't do anything that isn't nice."
  - tempfile 2y ago
    > My rant was general, not against this specific issue Sure, and the comment you're replying to also explained the error in your argument in general. Being privileged and exploited are not mutually exclusive. "those are the rules of the game" is not very far from saying "everything that is possible is fair". It's the logic of a bully.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

tempfile 2y ago

It's hard to distinguish this comment from a troll response. But just to deal with the factual claim: > When you submit a PR to a business’s intellectual property, it’s still theirs. Nope, contributions do not "belong" to the receiving project unless explicitly agreed so. They were created under a license, and are (usually) reciprocally licensed to the project. The owner is and always was the contributor. To call someone a beggar for asking for their code back is beyond belief.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]