3 ms·

It's why I don't understand why people believe in "open source". Why would I contribute free dev work to a billion dollar corporation? I do believe in "Free So

It's why I don't understand why people believe in "open source". Why would I contribute free dev work to a billion dollar corporation? I do believe in "Free Software" which is contributing free dev work to my fellow man for the benefit of all man mankind.

CharlesW 1y ago
This may be a misconception. "Free software" (e.g. Linux) also benefits billion-dollar corporations and "open source" also benefits all mankind.
- blendergeek 1y ago
  Free software and open source are two ideologies for the same thing. Free Software is the ideology of developing the software for the benefit of mankind (it's sometimes termed a "political" stance but I see it as an ethical stance). Open source is the ideology of saving money at a corporation by not paying the developers. Sure open source can benefit mankind but will only develop corporate software for money. When developing on my own time, I will focus on software that either personally benefits me or benefits other regular people.
  - CharlesW 1y ago
    I applaud your choice! I just can't think of any free software examples that don't also benefit corporations.
    - trueismywork 1y ago
      You need to think it in a different manner. When you have AGPL code, then it benefits mankind more than corporations. There's a Harvard report on value of open source to society based on how much money corporations put in. Today linux is working nicely on desktops (even though it's not the year of linux) and is heavily dominated by corporations. The parts where linux doesn't do well are exactly parts without corporate support. Software is becoming complex enough that it's not possible for a single company to just even maintain a compiler let alone an office suite. Its perfect ground for either one company having monopoly or an free software (not open source) being a base for masses.
      - kortilla 1y ago
        That’s not an example of open source that doesn’t benefit corporations. Linux is amazing for corporations.
    - Wilder7977 1y ago
      Lichess, the gazillion of self-hosting software. There are many examples of free software that are exclusively (or let's say predominantly) used in noncommercial environments. In any case, I agree with the commenter, and I think that developing a software which is also used by companies is different from looking for vulnerabilities in the context and scope of a bug bounty program for a specific company. Yes, you could argue that users of said company are going to be more secure, but it's evidence t like even in this case the company is the direct beneficiary.
- NoOn3 1y ago
  at least under some licenses like GPL/AGPL you get some code back.
exe34 1y ago
I think the argument is that when big companies make use of stuff, it gets more scrutiny and occasionally they contribute back improvements, and the occasional unicorn gets actual man hours paid for improving it. So if your project gets big enough, it's beneficial. But you have to have a MIT/BSD license usually, because companies will normally stay away from GPL.
eastbound 1y ago
> Why would I contribute free dev work to a billion dollar corporation? The billion dollars company contributed more to your startup than you do to them. Microsoft provides: - VSCode, - Hosts all NPM repositories. You know, the ones small startups are too lazy to cache (also because it’s much harder to cache NPM repositories than Maven) and then you re-download them at each build, - Typescript
- wkat4242 1y ago
  Meh it depends whether you use those things of course. There's other IDEs, other languages. And Microsoft isn't doing this out of charity. A lot of the really useful plugins are not working on the open source version, so people that use them provide telemetry which is probably valuable. Or they use it as a gateway to their services like GitHub Copilot. If a mega corporation gives you something for free it's always more beneficial to them otherwise they wouldn't do it in the first place.
  - eastbound 1y ago
    So, no OSS contribution is valid unless you are using this very library? Did Microsoft contribute more to the OSS world, or did the OSS world contribute more to Microsoft? I pardon Microsoft because they have donated Typescript, which is a true civilizational progress. You could say the OSS world has contributed to Microsoft because they’ve given them a real OS, which they didn’t have inner expertise to develop. We’re even. Now you sound like you have a beef against large companies and would find any argument against them. Some guy once told me that I didn’t increase my employees by 30% out of benevolence, but because I must be an awful employer. See, why else would I increase employees. This behavior is actively harmful to the rest of the world. You are depriving good actions from a “thank you” and hence you are depriving recipients of good actions from more of them. With this attitude, the world becomes exactly like you project it to be: Shitty.
    - bgwalter 1y ago
      The open source ecosystem was perfect before Microsoft tried to meddle, assimilate and destroy. Microsoft has destroyed several open source projects by infiltrating them with mediocre MSFT employees. Microsoft bought the GitHub monopoly in order to control open source further. Microsoft then stole and violated the copyright by training "AI" on the GitHub open source. Microsoft finances influential open source organizations like OSI in order to make them more compliant and business friendly. The useful projects are tiny compared to the entire open source stack. Paying for NPM repositories is a goodwill gesture and another power grab.
victorbjorklund 1y ago
Why do basic science which benefits everyone else for free?

CharlesW 1y ago

This may be a misconception. "Free software" (e.g. Linux) also benefits billion-dollar corporations and "open source" also benefits all mankind.

blendergeek 1y ago
Free software and open source are two ideologies for the same thing. Free Software is the ideology of developing the software for the benefit of mankind (it's sometimes termed a "political" stance but I see it as an ethical stance). Open source is the ideology of saving money at a corporation by not paying the developers. Sure open source can benefit mankind but will only develop corporate software for money. When developing on my own time, I will focus on software that either personally benefits me or benefits other regular people.
- CharlesW 1y ago
  I applaud your choice! I just can't think of any free software examples that don't also benefit corporations.
  - trueismywork 1y ago
    You need to think it in a different manner. When you have AGPL code, then it benefits mankind more than corporations. There's a Harvard report on value of open source to society based on how much money corporations put in. Today linux is working nicely on desktops (even though it's not the year of linux) and is heavily dominated by corporations. The parts where linux doesn't do well are exactly parts without corporate support. Software is becoming complex enough that it's not possible for a single company to just even maintain a compiler let alone an office suite. Its perfect ground for either one company having monopoly or an free software (not open source) being a base for masses.
    - kortilla 1y ago
      That’s not an example of open source that doesn’t benefit corporations. Linux is amazing for corporations.
  - Wilder7977 1y ago
    Lichess, the gazillion of self-hosting software. There are many examples of free software that are exclusively (or let's say predominantly) used in noncommercial environments. In any case, I agree with the commenter, and I think that developing a software which is also used by companies is different from looking for vulnerabilities in the context and scope of a bug bounty program for a specific company. Yes, you could argue that users of said company are going to be more secure, but it's evidence t like even in this case the company is the direct beneficiary.
NoOn3 1y ago
at least under some licenses like GPL/AGPL you get some code back.

exe34 1y ago

I think the argument is that when big companies make use of stuff, it gets more scrutiny and occasionally they contribute back improvements, and the occasional unicorn gets actual man hours paid for improving it. So if your project gets big enough, it's beneficial. But you have to have a MIT/BSD license usually, because companies will normally stay away from GPL.

eastbound 1y ago

> Why would I contribute free dev work to a billion dollar corporation? The billion dollars company contributed more to your startup than you do to them. Microsoft provides: - VSCode, - Hosts all NPM repositories. You know, the ones small startups are too lazy to cache (also because it’s much harder to cache NPM repositories than Maven) and then you re-download them at each build, - Typescript

wkat4242 1y ago
Meh it depends whether you use those things of course. There's other IDEs, other languages. And Microsoft isn't doing this out of charity. A lot of the really useful plugins are not working on the open source version, so people that use them provide telemetry which is probably valuable. Or they use it as a gateway to their services like GitHub Copilot. If a mega corporation gives you something for free it's always more beneficial to them otherwise they wouldn't do it in the first place.
- eastbound 1y ago
  So, no OSS contribution is valid unless you are using this very library? Did Microsoft contribute more to the OSS world, or did the OSS world contribute more to Microsoft? I pardon Microsoft because they have donated Typescript, which is a true civilizational progress. You could say the OSS world has contributed to Microsoft because they’ve given them a real OS, which they didn’t have inner expertise to develop. We’re even. Now you sound like you have a beef against large companies and would find any argument against them. Some guy once told me that I didn’t increase my employees by 30% out of benevolence, but because I must be an awful employer. See, why else would I increase employees. This behavior is actively harmful to the rest of the world. You are depriving good actions from a “thank you” and hence you are depriving recipients of good actions from more of them. With this attitude, the world becomes exactly like you project it to be: Shitty.
  - bgwalter 1y ago
    The open source ecosystem was perfect before Microsoft tried to meddle, assimilate and destroy. Microsoft has destroyed several open source projects by infiltrating them with mediocre MSFT employees. Microsoft bought the GitHub monopoly in order to control open source further. Microsoft then stole and violated the copyright by training "AI" on the GitHub open source. Microsoft finances influential open source organizations like OSI in order to make them more compliant and business friendly. The useful projects are tiny compared to the entire open source stack. Paying for NPM repositories is a goodwill gesture and another power grab.

victorbjorklund 1y ago

Why do basic science which benefits everyone else for free?