5 ms·

Well, many developers publish their code not because they want to specifically make a successful open source project, but because they made something that was u

Well, many developers publish their code not because they want to specifically make a successful open source project, but because they made something that was useful to themselves, and like the idea behind open source. In that case it makes more sense to do a copyleft license because it will legally require all derivatives to also follow that open source idea.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
jaredklewis 1y ago
Yea I think stuff like this is great and will have some impact around the edges. Perhaps particularly in the realm of end-user software, like a window tiling manager. But once we start talking about the kind of software large corporations (like AWS) will have an interest in, projects have to be successful to be useful. Software requires maintenance so the maintainers need to be able to devote their time to maintaining and improving the project. So this will select for projects that are successful enough that the maintainers can focus on it fully (either because some company hires them to work on their own project, they can charge high consulting fees because of their association with the project, or whatever). I think "the code" (the thing covered by copyright) in most cases is not as valuable as "the project:" the leadership, the contributors, the users, the norms and practices, the commitment to ongoing maintenance, and so on. So just lots of individuals all putting pieces of their code out there with GPL probably doesn't make a lot of impact (though there is nothing wrong with it), because most users don't want "code" they want a "project" they can rely on.
- swiftcoder 1y ago
  > once we start talking about the kind of software large corporations (like AWS) will have an interest in I'm not sure why someone who is spending their limited free time building software to give away for free would want Amazon as a downstream consumer Do you enjoy spending your nights and weekends dealing with CVE reports, while a high-6-figure BigTech engineer nags you that they need it fixed?
  - jaredklewis 1y ago
    We definitely agree on this point. Different licenses select for different things. It is an annoying problem to have, but if your goal is to be able to support yourself by working on your open source project full time (not saying this has to be or should be everyone’s goal), then having big tech engineers nagging you is probably a good problem to have.
    - swiftcoder 1y ago
      Honestly haven't seen many open-source maintainers convert a BigTech downstream into recurring revenue. I'm sure it does happen, but its far from the norm
      - Aurornis 1y ago
        If your project gets adopted by Big Tech then your market rate as an engineer just went way up. It’s a huge badge of honor and a rare accomplishment. You’re thinking too directly if you can’t imagine how having your OSS project adopted by Big Tech isn’t a career boost.
        zelphirkalt 1y ago
        Maybe it can happen, but ask the people maintaining open source projects long term, how much it helped them pass silly leetcode interviews, which companies insist must be done, even if you have a golden track record.
        notpushkin 1y ago
        “Google: 90% of our engineers use the software you wrote (Homebrew), but you can’t invert a binary tree on a whiteboard so fuck off.” https://twitter.com/mxcl/status/608682016205344768 https://twitter.com/mxcl/status/608682016205344768
        Aurornis 1y ago
- account42 1y ago
  AWS doesn't seem to have an issue with using copyleft software.
  - eadmund 1y ago
    Which copyleft software does AWS use? Linux, certainly. And MariaDB/MySQL (but also the BSD-like PostgreSQL). I was under the impression that it typically avoids GPL software when there is a BSD- or MIT-licensed alternative.
bigstrat2003 1y ago
> In that case it makes more sense to do a copyleft license because it will legally require all derivatives to also follow that open source idea. That is a matter of opinion. I have put out some open source stuff under the form you mentioned, and it's always BSD or another permissive license. I view it as quite wrong to force my moral choices upon others, so I give others the freedom to use whatever license they like. In my case, that is what makes sense because of my own moral convictions.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

jaredklewis 1y ago

Yea I think stuff like this is great and will have some impact around the edges. Perhaps particularly in the realm of end-user software, like a window tiling manager. But once we start talking about the kind of software large corporations (like AWS) will have an interest in, projects have to be successful to be useful. Software requires maintenance so the maintainers need to be able to devote their time to maintaining and improving the project. So this will select for projects that are successful enough that the maintainers can focus on it fully (either because some company hires them to work on their own project, they can charge high consulting fees because of their association with the project, or whatever). I think "the code" (the thing covered by copyright) in most cases is not as valuable as "the project:" the leadership, the contributors, the users, the norms and practices, the commitment to ongoing maintenance, and so on. So just lots of individuals all putting pieces of their code out there with GPL probably doesn't make a lot of impact (though there is nothing wrong with it), because most users don't want "code" they want a "project" they can rely on.

swiftcoder 1y ago
> once we start talking about the kind of software large corporations (like AWS) will have an interest in I'm not sure why someone who is spending their limited free time building software to give away for free would want Amazon as a downstream consumer Do you enjoy spending your nights and weekends dealing with CVE reports, while a high-6-figure BigTech engineer nags you that they need it fixed?
- jaredklewis 1y ago
  We definitely agree on this point. Different licenses select for different things. It is an annoying problem to have, but if your goal is to be able to support yourself by working on your open source project full time (not saying this has to be or should be everyone’s goal), then having big tech engineers nagging you is probably a good problem to have.
  - swiftcoder 1y ago
    Honestly haven't seen many open-source maintainers convert a BigTech downstream into recurring revenue. I'm sure it does happen, but its far from the norm
    - Aurornis 1y ago
      If your project gets adopted by Big Tech then your market rate as an engineer just went way up. It’s a huge badge of honor and a rare accomplishment. You’re thinking too directly if you can’t imagine how having your OSS project adopted by Big Tech isn’t a career boost.
      - zelphirkalt 1y ago
        Maybe it can happen, but ask the people maintaining open source projects long term, how much it helped them pass silly leetcode interviews, which companies insist must be done, even if you have a golden track record.
        notpushkin 1y ago
        “Google: 90% of our engineers use the software you wrote (Homebrew), but you can’t invert a binary tree on a whiteboard so fuck off.” https://twitter.com/mxcl/status/608682016205344768 https://twitter.com/mxcl/status/608682016205344768
        Aurornis 1y ago
account42 1y ago
AWS doesn't seem to have an issue with using copyleft software.
- eadmund 1y ago
  Which copyleft software does AWS use? Linux, certainly. And MariaDB/MySQL (but also the BSD-like PostgreSQL). I was under the impression that it typically avoids GPL software when there is a BSD- or MIT-licensed alternative.

bigstrat2003 1y ago

> In that case it makes more sense to do a copyleft license because it will legally require all derivatives to also follow that open source idea. That is a matter of opinion. I have put out some open source stuff under the form you mentioned, and it's always BSD or another permissive license. I view it as quite wrong to force my moral choices upon others, so I give others the freedom to use whatever license they like. In my case, that is what makes sense because of my own moral convictions.