3 ms·

I feel like this keeps coming up again and again and I can't help thinking that they just don't get it. Or maybe I don't. There's two prevailing sentiments IMO

I feel like this keeps coming up again and again and I can't help thinking that they just don't get it. Or maybe I don't. There's two prevailing sentiments IMO - (1) FSF-like: the greatest freedom is achieved when we empower the users of the software to improve or fix the very software that they are using and (2) BSD-like: the greatest freedom is achieved when we permit licensees to freely use the software how they see fit. In my opinion, nothing in either scenario risks "appropriation". There's only different takes on "freedom." But if you fear appropriation then clearly licenses like AGPL and GPLv3 are more suitable. Making money is not incompatible with Open Source nor Free Software. Making lots and lots of money is not incompatible with it either. If you don't like what might happen when you license your code liberally, you might just prefer proprietary software. And that's okay too. You can even publish the source but add a restrictive license (or explicitly forbid any use). This is a source available proprietary approach. I wouldn't contribute to a project like this, but there's no reason you couldn't make yours like this. Free (beer/kostenloss, not freiheit) is magic and does magical things to people's brains. Also, public software work is really valuable to attract higher quality results. If you seek to balance a ledger, then it's not free (in either sense of the word). I wonder to myself: these articles, are they really written by open source software contributors who regret their contributions? Or someone on the outside looking in, wondering how they can "fix" things?

tbrownaw 2y ago
> Making money is not incompatible with Open Source nor Free Software. Making lots and lots of money is not incompatible with it either. Well not at a philosophical level, but there appear to be some practical difficulties.
- BizarroLand 2y ago
  If you look at ebay, there are hundreds of people selling libreoffice downloads. They probably only sell a few of them, but still, it's money for nothing as long as your advertisements can get people to give you cash, and it's not illegal even if it is dubiously moral. At the same time, some people are putting the files on flash drives or CD-Roms and mailing them, and that at least is a service attached to the product and adds value.
marcus_holmes 2y ago
> I wonder to myself: these articles, are they really written by open source software contributors who regret their contributions? Or someone on the outside looking in, wondering how they can "fix" things? yeah, same. I understand the regret, but how naive do you have to be when you start contributing to OSS to not understand that your work may be used in ways you do not like, or want? But there's also the industry recruitment idiocy around OSS - that not having a Github profile with a bunch of OSS on it is somehow indicative of less programming skill, rather than being indicative of a more jaundiced view of the world. New developers get pushed into contributing hundreds or thousands of hours into OSS in the belief that it will help get them a high-paying job in tech. Which, to be fair, it might. But they then can't complain that all their work is subsequently used to commit genocide, or make vast amounts of money for someone else completely unconnected with the project. I have real doubts that FOSS is viable, long-term. It's hard to get into a rational debate about this, though.

tbrownaw 2y ago

> Making money is not incompatible with Open Source nor Free Software. Making lots and lots of money is not incompatible with it either. Well not at a philosophical level, but there appear to be some practical difficulties.

BizarroLand 2y ago
If you look at ebay, there are hundreds of people selling libreoffice downloads. They probably only sell a few of them, but still, it's money for nothing as long as your advertisements can get people to give you cash, and it's not illegal even if it is dubiously moral. At the same time, some people are putting the files on flash drives or CD-Roms and mailing them, and that at least is a service attached to the product and adds value.

marcus_holmes 2y ago

> I wonder to myself: these articles, are they really written by open source software contributors who regret their contributions? Or someone on the outside looking in, wondering how they can "fix" things? yeah, same. I understand the regret, but how naive do you have to be when you start contributing to OSS to not understand that your work may be used in ways you do not like, or want? But there's also the industry recruitment idiocy around OSS - that not having a Github profile with a bunch of OSS on it is somehow indicative of less programming skill, rather than being indicative of a more jaundiced view of the world. New developers get pushed into contributing hundreds or thousands of hours into OSS in the belief that it will help get them a high-paying job in tech. Which, to be fair, it might. But they then can't complain that all their work is subsequently used to commit genocide, or make vast amounts of money for someone else completely unconnected with the project. I have real doubts that FOSS is viable, long-term. It's hard to get into a rational debate about this, though.