2 ms·

This open source mess must be changed. Provide a payment infrastructure to OS developers, otherwise you are left without options. Anyone can fork your hard wo

This open source mess must be changed. Provide a payment infrastructure to OS developers, otherwise you are left without options. Anyone can fork your hard work, anyone with more resources than you can push you out of your own work and expropriate it, noone pays for your hard work. When someone realizes this and changes the license the hardhat OS advocates turn against you and fork your hard work, essentially trying to deprive you of any income. Who on fucking earth thinks this is a good model? And who benefits, anyone dared to ask the question? For a starter: Force github to implement proper monetization options, that is visible and allows the creators to ask a sum for their work. Your work will remain open source, buy you must pay a low sum. If anyone is against this, then go, create your own project and don't use publicly available code.

concerndc1tizen 2y ago
My theory is that open source was never intended to be based on free work. Rather, it is an open collaboration between companies, which realize that it will lower their cost, while not being a competitive advantage for either party. It improves the profit margin for everyone. What you're proposing is to convert Github into a small-business platform that sells "open source" software products, which is entirely different.
tekkk 2y ago
Plenty of OSS developers/companies have survived and make a living out of their work. You just have to provide enough value on top of your project with your closed-source services that people are inclined to pay for them, instead of hacking up their own solutions. Or consultation. No one forces you to make your project OSS. It's a trade-off you should consider carefully before you do. But because people keep doing it, it's clear there are massive benefits to it. And many open source projects are just modules extracted from the company code base to gather developer mindset and to reduce costs by harnessing outside developers. It's, as such, a fine model as it is. Rug-pulling and exertion of power through stupid lawyer BS is what kills those projects if anything. If people are not paying for your OSS addons, perhaps they aren't that good after all.

concerndc1tizen 2y ago

My theory is that open source was never intended to be based on free work. Rather, it is an open collaboration between companies, which realize that it will lower their cost, while not being a competitive advantage for either party. It improves the profit margin for everyone. What you're proposing is to convert Github into a small-business platform that sells "open source" software products, which is entirely different.

tekkk 2y ago

Plenty of OSS developers/companies have survived and make a living out of their work. You just have to provide enough value on top of your project with your closed-source services that people are inclined to pay for them, instead of hacking up their own solutions. Or consultation. No one forces you to make your project OSS. It's a trade-off you should consider carefully before you do. But because people keep doing it, it's clear there are massive benefits to it. And many open source projects are just modules extracted from the company code base to gather developer mindset and to reduce costs by harnessing outside developers. It's, as such, a fine model as it is. Rug-pulling and exertion of power through stupid lawyer BS is what kills those projects if anything. If people are not paying for your OSS addons, perhaps they aren't that good after all.