5 ms·

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 fi

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 .
        bayindirh 1y ago
        Thanks! Got the paper, will read ASAP, hopefully. At the meantime, I have added a couple of real world examples to the comment you originally replied. So there's some more words from the mouth of the people inside this.
      - securesaml 1y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39912916 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39912916 they did get some funding after asking.
        bayindirh 1y ago
        The title of the linked HN story is "Microsoft offered FFmpeg small one-time payment instead of support contract". So FFmpeg said that they need a contract for that, and they have given a couple thousand dollars as a one-time contribution. I mean, "a few thousand dollars" for something underpinning Teams, is unacceptable. They probably charge 10x much for a small client for their yearly license. C'mon now. This is not even satire.

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 .
      - bayindirh 1y ago
        Thanks! Got the paper, will read ASAP, hopefully. At the meantime, I have added a couple of real world examples to the comment you originally replied. So there's some more words from the mouth of the people inside this.
    - securesaml 1y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39912916 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39912916 they did get some funding after asking.
      - bayindirh 1y ago
        The title of the linked HN story is "Microsoft offered FFmpeg small one-time payment instead of support contract". So FFmpeg said that they need a contract for that, and they have given a couple thousand dollars as a one-time contribution. I mean, "a few thousand dollars" for something underpinning Teams, is unacceptable. They probably charge 10x much for a small client for their yearly license. C'mon now. This is not even satire.