3 ms·

One of the problems I have with paid solutions is that they generally use open source softwares and don't contribute a dime to them once their paid solutions ar

One of the problems I have with paid solutions is that they generally use open source softwares and don't contribute a dime to them once their paid solutions are generating cash.

bathtub365 2y ago
As long as they aren’t violating the license they aren’t legally or even socially obligated to fund any of the open source projects they use. If you release software under an open source license that allows free commercial use and redistribution you are explicitly saying you are fine with this. If you don’t want this to happen, use an open source license with more restrictions on commercial use.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
lolinder 2y ago
Open Source is just the free-but-profitable trend that OP is talking about taken to the limit. It's software that developers make for free and release for free—most often under a license that requires nothing but attribution. Then a not insignificant portion of those developers feel entitled to be paid for their work, preferably at something north of the median salary in their native country. If you're developing open source software because you believe in the commons, license it under (A)GPL to ensure the propagation of the commons. If you're developing open source because it looks good on a resume, then you've already been paid for it in reputation. But if you're developing open source because you think you'll get paid for it, I don't know what to tell you except that that is not how the world works. (Which is, of course, a totally different conversation than whether we wish it were how the world works.)
- conaclos 2y ago
  > If you're developing open source software because you believe in the commons, license it under (A)GPL to ensure the propagation of the commons. If you're developing open source because it looks good on a resume, then you've already been paid for it in reputation. But if you're developing open source because you think you'll get paid for it, I don't know what to tell you except that that is not how the world works. This is not so simple. Even in the FOSS community, some people are allergic to copyleft licenses. I usually choose a license based on the practice of a community. Also, if you make the choice of copy-left in a world or copy-free is king, you are just isolating yourself from others. Often in big projects, you cannot alone, and the decision of license is a collective one. I prefer the idea of regulating this mess: enforcing that everyone who has contributed to the success of a project - directly or indirectly - gets paid. It looks more fair and is based on merit - which this society seems to value.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > I usually choose a license based on the practice of a community. Also, if you make the choice of copy-left in a world or copy-free is king, you are just isolating yourself from others. Often in big projects, you cannot alone, and the decision of license is a collective one. Fair, but in that case your compensation is choosing a license that gets you acceptance in the community that you're working with. I'm not in favor of regulating that people who put stuff out into the world for free should get paid for that work, unless we're talking straight up UBI for everyone. If you want government to fund open source, it should do so by employing people to work on open source or by funding everyone to work on their hobbies via something like UBI. And absent government funding, if you want to get paid you need to have a business model that allows for that. The existing practice in portions of the open source community is to put things out with extremely permissive licenses but then throw a fit when people don't pay you for them. This is what's known as a bait and switch.

One of the problems I have with paid solutions is that they generally use open source softwares and don't contribute a dime to them once their paid solutions are generating cash.

bathtub365 2y ago

As long as they aren’t violating the license they aren’t legally or even socially obligated to fund any of the open source projects they use. If you release software under an open source license that allows free commercial use and redistribution you are explicitly saying you are fine with this. If you don’t want this to happen, use an open source license with more restrictions on commercial use.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

lolinder 2y ago

Open Source is just the free-but-profitable trend that OP is talking about taken to the limit. It's software that developers make for free and release for free—most often under a license that requires nothing but attribution. Then a not insignificant portion of those developers feel entitled to be paid for their work, preferably at something north of the median salary in their native country. If you're developing open source software because you believe in the commons, license it under (A)GPL to ensure the propagation of the commons. If you're developing open source because it looks good on a resume, then you've already been paid for it in reputation. But if you're developing open source because you think you'll get paid for it, I don't know what to tell you except that that is not how the world works. (Which is, of course, a totally different conversation than whether we wish it were how the world works.)

conaclos 2y ago
> If you're developing open source software because you believe in the commons, license it under (A)GPL to ensure the propagation of the commons. If you're developing open source because it looks good on a resume, then you've already been paid for it in reputation. But if you're developing open source because you think you'll get paid for it, I don't know what to tell you except that that is not how the world works. This is not so simple. Even in the FOSS community, some people are allergic to copyleft licenses. I usually choose a license based on the practice of a community. Also, if you make the choice of copy-left in a world or copy-free is king, you are just isolating yourself from others. Often in big projects, you cannot alone, and the decision of license is a collective one. I prefer the idea of regulating this mess: enforcing that everyone who has contributed to the success of a project - directly or indirectly - gets paid. It looks more fair and is based on merit - which this society seems to value.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > I usually choose a license based on the practice of a community. Also, if you make the choice of copy-left in a world or copy-free is king, you are just isolating yourself from others. Often in big projects, you cannot alone, and the decision of license is a collective one. Fair, but in that case your compensation is choosing a license that gets you acceptance in the community that you're working with. I'm not in favor of regulating that people who put stuff out into the world for free should get paid for that work, unless we're talking straight up UBI for everyone. If you want government to fund open source, it should do so by employing people to work on open source or by funding everyone to work on their hobbies via something like UBI. And absent government funding, if you want to get paid you need to have a business model that allows for that. The existing practice in portions of the open source community is to put things out with extremely permissive licenses but then throw a fit when people don't pay you for them. This is what's known as a bait and switch.