4 ms·

I'd note that the only thing Apple, Google and MS are said to have done is to use the software. The bug has no actual example of them making demands, "leeching

by jsnell 1y ago

I'd note that the only thing Apple, Google and MS are said to have done is to use the software. The bug has no actual example of them making demands, "leeching" or acting entitled. The security issues would be security issues just the same even if the library was only used by Linux desktops. (And if the library is unfit for use in other operating systems like the author suggests, feels like it probably is equally unfit for use in Gnome.)

polotics 1y ago
It's high-time for a "reasonable compensation" clause in hobbyists' open-source software licenses I think. Something to the effect of: "if you're using my labour of love to make millions, gimme one of these millions..."
- illiac786 1y ago
  The compensation should be in code not in money…
- watwut 1y ago
  You can make such license, there is no issue with that. You just cant call it "MIT License" after that.
- ThrowawayR2 1y ago
  Yes, it's called "becoming proprietary software" because what are you going to do to get that oh so reasonable compensation? Create your own billing department and manage tax payments on your revenue? Hire a legal team to create and enforce your license? Sic the BSA (apparently they still exist after all these years!) to threaten to audit organizations who aren't paying? Fend off lawsuits from users, competitors, and patent trolls? (Once you start collecting money, other people inevitably want a piece of it.)
- abracadaniel 1y ago
  I’d also like to see a license which prohibits any for-profit use. A don’t charge others for something you got for free license.
  - pabs3 1y ago
    There are lots of those, CC-NC to start with.
- pabs3 1y ago
  That probably wouldn't meet the Open Source Definition. https://opensourcedefinition.org/ https://opensourcedefinition.org/
altairprime 1y ago
Uncompensated use for unshared reward is, by definition, leeching. The BBS use of the term referred to leeching in the context your upload/download ratio, the torrent use in the context of your seeded/downloaded ratio. ratio = (contributions - demands) : earnings If you contribute nothing, demand nothing, and earn nothing, carry on. “Nothing” is loosely defined as “near enough to zero in the context of a specific project”. If you contribute nothing, demand nothing, and earn (DL) a million dollars using it somehow, you’re a leecher. Your U/D ratio is 0.0. That should be an uncomfortable realization. One way to cope with that is to raise your ratio to 0.1. If you make a million dollars of revenue using libcurl, how much are you allocating to donate back? If you contribute nothing and demand security fixes, then you’re not a leecher — you’re a parasite, because your demands exceed your contributions; your sign bit is still negative even if your ratio is 0.0 or NaN. It has been zero days since this workplace had a maintainer injury due to parasitic behavior. Leechers are demoralizing when the revenue earned would let the author quit their day job to do more fun work instead. Parasites leave a trail of damaged and dead projects in their wake. libxml2’s maintainer made a policy change that cuts off the food supply for parasites; good. They’ll still burnout someday due to the untreated morale damage being done by the billionaire leechers, though. If an author accepts contributions and you feel like a leecher, do something about it. If they do not accept contributions (including money) or if the anccepted contributions are incompatible (their code is in COBOL and you only know Rust, they only offer “donate bitcoin”, you’re a broke student funding school with your project) then maybe write them a thank you letter? and revisit this if your or their circumstances change someday. As a former open source maintainer, I don’t mind it when people leech. That’s chill. Go for it. I don’t have a tip jar because I don’t expect a tip. But I mind when people DL a million dollars of revenue using my work and have a UL:DL ratio of 0.0 with me. Corporations, formally do not care whether users are hobbyists, leechers, or parasites. Maintainers do. The OSI continues to reject as Open Source any licenses attempting to stop the morale impact of millionaire leechers and the time and effort drained by parasites. Which is more important to the future of open source: the right to be a leecher or a parasite, or the maintainers that they feed upon?
- jsnell 1y ago
  > If you contribute nothing and demand security fixes, then you’re not a leecher — you’re a parasite, because your demands exceed your contributions; There's the "demand" word again. Who is that demanded something from the maintainer, and where? I saw no indication in the original bug of any demands from big tech companies. (Just the act reporting a security issue is not a demand. A verifiable bug is a bug whether it was reported or not, and reporting one is a contribution.) When the demand part of your torrent-inspired equation is zero, how is it leeching? It's just zero, no matter what the earnings are.

by jsnell 1y ago

polotics 1y ago

It's high-time for a "reasonable compensation" clause in hobbyists' open-source software licenses I think. Something to the effect of: "if you're using my labour of love to make millions, gimme one of these millions..."

illiac786 1y ago
The compensation should be in code not in money…
watwut 1y ago
You can make such license, there is no issue with that. You just cant call it "MIT License" after that.
ThrowawayR2 1y ago
Yes, it's called "becoming proprietary software" because what are you going to do to get that oh so reasonable compensation? Create your own billing department and manage tax payments on your revenue? Hire a legal team to create and enforce your license? Sic the BSA (apparently they still exist after all these years!) to threaten to audit organizations who aren't paying? Fend off lawsuits from users, competitors, and patent trolls? (Once you start collecting money, other people inevitably want a piece of it.)
abracadaniel 1y ago
I’d also like to see a license which prohibits any for-profit use. A don’t charge others for something you got for free license.
- pabs3 1y ago
  There are lots of those, CC-NC to start with.
pabs3 1y ago
That probably wouldn't meet the Open Source Definition. https://opensourcedefinition.org/ https://opensourcedefinition.org/

altairprime 1y ago

Uncompensated use for unshared reward is, by definition, leeching. The BBS use of the term referred to leeching in the context your upload/download ratio, the torrent use in the context of your seeded/downloaded ratio. ratio = (contributions - demands) : earnings If you contribute nothing, demand nothing, and earn nothing, carry on. “Nothing” is loosely defined as “near enough to zero in the context of a specific project”. If you contribute nothing, demand nothing, and earn (DL) a million dollars using it somehow, you’re a leecher. Your U/D ratio is 0.0. That should be an uncomfortable realization. One way to cope with that is to raise your ratio to 0.1. If you make a million dollars of revenue using libcurl, how much are you allocating to donate back? If you contribute nothing and demand security fixes, then you’re not a leecher — you’re a parasite, because your demands exceed your contributions; your sign bit is still negative even if your ratio is 0.0 or NaN. It has been zero days since this workplace had a maintainer injury due to parasitic behavior. Leechers are demoralizing when the revenue earned would let the author quit their day job to do more fun work instead. Parasites leave a trail of damaged and dead projects in their wake. libxml2’s maintainer made a policy change that cuts off the food supply for parasites; good. They’ll still burnout someday due to the untreated morale damage being done by the billionaire leechers, though. If an author accepts contributions and you feel like a leecher, do something about it. If they do not accept contributions (including money) or if the anccepted contributions are incompatible (their code is in COBOL and you only know Rust, they only offer “donate bitcoin”, you’re a broke student funding school with your project) then maybe write them a thank you letter? and revisit this if your or their circumstances change someday. As a former open source maintainer, I don’t mind it when people leech. That’s chill. Go for it. I don’t have a tip jar because I don’t expect a tip. But I mind when people DL a million dollars of revenue using my work and have a UL:DL ratio of 0.0 with me. Corporations, formally do not care whether users are hobbyists, leechers, or parasites. Maintainers do. The OSI continues to reject as Open Source any licenses attempting to stop the morale impact of millionaire leechers and the time and effort drained by parasites. Which is more important to the future of open source: the right to be a leecher or a parasite, or the maintainers that they feed upon?

jsnell 1y ago
> If you contribute nothing and demand security fixes, then you’re not a leecher — you’re a parasite, because your demands exceed your contributions; There's the "demand" word again. Who is that demanded something from the maintainer, and where? I saw no indication in the original bug of any demands from big tech companies. (Just the act reporting a security issue is not a demand. A verifiable bug is a bug whether it was reported or not, and reporting one is a contribution.) When the demand part of your torrent-inspired equation is zero, how is it leeching? It's just zero, no matter what the earnings are.