3 ms·

You can demand payment but it doesn't mean you'll get paid. These days companies will clone your work instead of paying.

by wmf 9mo ago

zxcvasd 9mo ago
[dead]
zhengyi13 9mo ago
As covered literally just a few days ago (IIRC), you absolutely can demand payment: https://github.com/LGUG2Z/komorebi https://github.com/LGUG2Z/komorebi actively works to detect MDM, and if found, demand payment. Not open source, but an interesting counterpoint, I think.
- bsnnkv 9mo ago
  Relevant articles are here - https://lgug2z.com/articles/normalize-identifying-corporate-devices-in-your-software/ https://lgug2z.com/articles/normalize-identifying-corporate-... - https://lgug2z.com/articles/i-started-identifying-corporate-devices-in-my-software/ https://lgug2z.com/articles/i-started-identifying-corporate-... The post-open source space is indeed a very exciting space in 2026
  - alt187 9mo ago
    That's not post open-source. That's dual licensing, an use-case FOSS has enabled and supported forever.
    - bsnnkv 9mo ago
      > any time someone says something is post-$thing it means what they are doing is in dialogue with and in response to $thing. “we were doing that before $thing” no, you can’t be in dialogue with something that hasn’t happened yet. > this is like saying “what do you mean post-modernist architecture, architecture predates modernism”. https://lobste.rs/s/kaftkn/i_started_identifying_corporate_devices#c_6fvpmj https://lobste.rs/s/kaftkn/i_started_identifying_corporate_d...
Aurornis 9mo ago
Releasing open source software and then “demanding payment” goes against everything about open source. If someone expects to be paid for the use of their software, releasing it as open source is not what they want. If a maintainer of a software project starts trying to demand payment or threatening to change license terms, it’s a reasonable response for a company to fork it or build their own solution.
- bsnnkv 9mo ago
  And this is why all new projects by independent developers should seriously consider using a post-open source license before defaulting to corporate-friendly/corporate-first OSI licenses
  - AlexeyBelov 9mo ago
    I think they should expect payment from the job they're working, not opensource or "post-opensource" work.
    - bsnnkv 9mo ago
      Yep, this kind of attitude is even more reason to reject the broken status quo.

You can demand payment but it doesn't mean you'll get paid. These days companies will clone your work instead of paying.

by wmf 9mo ago

You can demand payment but it doesn't mean you'll get paid. These days companies will clone your work instead of paying.

zxcvasd 9mo ago

[dead]

zhengyi13 9mo ago

As covered literally just a few days ago (IIRC), you absolutely can demand payment: https://github.com/LGUG2Z/komorebi https://github.com/LGUG2Z/komorebi actively works to detect MDM, and if found, demand payment. Not open source, but an interesting counterpoint, I think.

bsnnkv 9mo ago
Relevant articles are here - https://lgug2z.com/articles/normalize-identifying-corporate-devices-in-your-software/ https://lgug2z.com/articles/normalize-identifying-corporate-... - https://lgug2z.com/articles/i-started-identifying-corporate-devices-in-my-software/ https://lgug2z.com/articles/i-started-identifying-corporate-... The post-open source space is indeed a very exciting space in 2026
- alt187 9mo ago
  That's not post open-source. That's dual licensing, an use-case FOSS has enabled and supported forever.
  - bsnnkv 9mo ago
    > any time someone says something is post-$thing it means what they are doing is in dialogue with and in response to $thing. “we were doing that before $thing” no, you can’t be in dialogue with something that hasn’t happened yet. > this is like saying “what do you mean post-modernist architecture, architecture predates modernism”. https://lobste.rs/s/kaftkn/i_started_identifying_corporate_devices#c_6fvpmj https://lobste.rs/s/kaftkn/i_started_identifying_corporate_d...

Aurornis 9mo ago

Releasing open source software and then “demanding payment” goes against everything about open source. If someone expects to be paid for the use of their software, releasing it as open source is not what they want. If a maintainer of a software project starts trying to demand payment or threatening to change license terms, it’s a reasonable response for a company to fork it or build their own solution.

bsnnkv 9mo ago
And this is why all new projects by independent developers should seriously consider using a post-open source license before defaulting to corporate-friendly/corporate-first OSI licenses
- AlexeyBelov 9mo ago
  I think they should expect payment from the job they're working, not opensource or "post-opensource" work.
  - bsnnkv 9mo ago
    Yep, this kind of attitude is even more reason to reject the broken status quo.