9 ms·

I’ve given up on hopes of having funding on open source. My open source packages account for about 1.2% of all PHP code downloaded from Packagist (package manag

I’ve given up on hopes of having funding on open source. My open source packages account for about 1.2% of all PHP code downloaded from Packagist (package manager) but unless there is a commercial effort behind it, I do not see it happening. A couple devs in highly hyped companies is able to generate a following big enough to solicit some non trivial amount of funding but the majority just doesn’t care enough about it to fund it. In the end, is open source maintainers are stupid enough to give our code away for free, so who’s really to blame for this. Perhaps it’s an overly pessimistic view, but not a view that has historically been disproven.

bayindirh 1y ago
MIT is pumped to enable current ecosystem, precisely. Companies say "This my code when I need it, and it's your code when it breaks", and developers read the fine print very late, because they thought exposure is valuable. GPL & AGPL is effective against that, but companies are afraid of it since it tells "code is a collaborative effort, and you have to share what you did with the code". Because of this, I share most of the code I write for myself, and strictly use (A)GPLv3 as a license. I don't care what companies do or what riches I possibly ignore. My principles are not for sale. Being responsible generates no value for the shareholders. Being able to be reckless and ignore everyone while making business is. Don't get distracted. It's about monies.
- securesaml 1y ago
  > Companies say "This my code when I need it, and it's your code when it breaks", and developers read the fine print very late, because they thought exposure is valuable. I think that this is an accurate description of working relationship. But, the fine print (MIT license) explicitly says that the companies are responsible: > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
  - bayindirh 1y ago
    That line allows shifting the blame upstream without any friction. Exhibit A: Company X uses library Y by Mr. Z., which is used by another 100 or so companies. Mr. Z. is happy because he's quasi-famous because of all the exposure. A bug has been found in Y by users of Company X, which is not interested in fixing it. - Users: Hey Company X, this feature provided by libY is broken. - Company X: This makes us lose money, but it's complicated. Tell Mr. Z. - Mr. Z: There's no warranty whatsoever. - Company X: You either fix it, or we spread the word that you're irresponsible and everyone will inevitably migrate to libW. - Mr. Z: OK. Lemme look at that. Mr Z. drops everything, fixes problem, maybe gets a Thanks!, and might feel better. Company X and other hundred gets free labor for their problems, and one person burns out. Why? Because nobody tried to understand how GPL works, and companies said MIT or no cookie points anyway. So, another developer is bought with hope vapor. He gets nothing in the end, while the company is printing money in two ways by not buying an expensive library and selling its capabilities. Edit: One Daniel Stenberg of curl:// has dropped this: https://mastodon.social/@bagder/115025727082593712 https://mastodon.social/@bagder/115025727082593712 Another (good) write up from LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/troed_how-many-open-source-projects-are-you-currently-activity-7361650475059818497-fhkA/ https://www.linkedin.com/posts/troed_how-many-open-source-pr...
    - fph 1y ago
      Do you think this would work? - Mr. Z: There's no warranty whatsoever. However, I might fix it for a small consulting fee. - Company X: You either fix it, or we spread the word that you're irresponsible and everyone will inevitably migrate to libW. - Mr. Z: Ok, and I'll spread the word that you are a cheapskate.
      - bayindirh 1y ago
        Can you give me an example when it did happen or it did indeed work?
        fph 1y ago
        I don't claim to have first-hand experience, that was just a suggestion. But there is a recent study on how maintainers respond to bug bounties here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.07670 https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.07670 .
sexyman48 1y ago
stupid to give our code away for free Most professional developers aren't that stupid. The problem is students, and the underemployed more broadly, write code to make a name for themselves, which isn't entirely irrational.

bayindirh 1y ago

MIT is pumped to enable current ecosystem, precisely. Companies say "This my code when I need it, and it's your code when it breaks", and developers read the fine print very late, because they thought exposure is valuable. GPL & AGPL is effective against that, but companies are afraid of it since it tells "code is a collaborative effort, and you have to share what you did with the code". Because of this, I share most of the code I write for myself, and strictly use (A)GPLv3 as a license. I don't care what companies do or what riches I possibly ignore. My principles are not for sale. Being responsible generates no value for the shareholders. Being able to be reckless and ignore everyone while making business is. Don't get distracted. It's about monies.

securesaml 1y ago
> Companies say "This my code when I need it, and it's your code when it breaks", and developers read the fine print very late, because they thought exposure is valuable. I think that this is an accurate description of working relationship. But, the fine print (MIT license) explicitly says that the companies are responsible: > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
- bayindirh 1y ago
  That line allows shifting the blame upstream without any friction. Exhibit A: Company X uses library Y by Mr. Z., which is used by another 100 or so companies. Mr. Z. is happy because he's quasi-famous because of all the exposure. A bug has been found in Y by users of Company X, which is not interested in fixing it. - Users: Hey Company X, this feature provided by libY is broken. - Company X: This makes us lose money, but it's complicated. Tell Mr. Z. - Mr. Z: There's no warranty whatsoever. - Company X: You either fix it, or we spread the word that you're irresponsible and everyone will inevitably migrate to libW. - Mr. Z: OK. Lemme look at that. Mr Z. drops everything, fixes problem, maybe gets a Thanks!, and might feel better. Company X and other hundred gets free labor for their problems, and one person burns out. Why? Because nobody tried to understand how GPL works, and companies said MIT or no cookie points anyway. So, another developer is bought with hope vapor. He gets nothing in the end, while the company is printing money in two ways by not buying an expensive library and selling its capabilities. Edit: One Daniel Stenberg of curl:// has dropped this: https://mastodon.social/@bagder/115025727082593712 https://mastodon.social/@bagder/115025727082593712 Another (good) write up from LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/troed_how-many-open-source-projects-are-you-currently-activity-7361650475059818497-fhkA/ https://www.linkedin.com/posts/troed_how-many-open-source-pr...
  - fph 1y ago
    Do you think this would work? - Mr. Z: There's no warranty whatsoever. However, I might fix it for a small consulting fee. - Company X: You either fix it, or we spread the word that you're irresponsible and everyone will inevitably migrate to libW. - Mr. Z: Ok, and I'll spread the word that you are a cheapskate.
    - bayindirh 1y ago
      Can you give me an example when it did happen or it did indeed work?
      - fph 1y ago
        I don't claim to have first-hand experience, that was just a suggestion. But there is a recent study on how maintainers respond to bug bounties here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.07670 https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.07670 .

sexyman48 1y ago

stupid to give our code away for free Most professional developers aren't that stupid. The problem is students, and the underemployed more broadly, write code to make a name for themselves, which isn't entirely irrational.