12 ms·
>second, I think, at least for me, what bugs me is the massive entitlement on display. God forbid devs who built an awesome piece of software get paid; instead,
by ars_technician 13y ago
>second, I think, at least for me, what bugs me is the massive entitlement on display. God forbid devs who built an awesome piece of software get paid; instead, dude whinges on the internet that he might have to gasp patch and compile an rpm or fork out some money. The horrors!
On the surface yes, but consider the betrayal to all of the external contributors. Is the money going to them too? What about the people that wasted time proposing a patch that overlapped with this 'enterprise feature'. Open source is not a one-way street.
- lsaferite 13y agoSo, I found myself in a similar position recently with a technically FOSS project. The patches I was submitting were being re-licensed under a commercial license and sold to enterprise customers. I had to sign contributors agreement before sending patches and after the fact I found myself having a philosophical issue with them selling my work. As a consequence, I stopped submitting patches to the main project and instead maintain my own patch repo now. While I find the wholesale re-licensing of the codebase under a commercial license reprehensible, I agreed to that before committing code. That leaves me with one remedy, not committing additional code. As a side note, this project had a basic FOSS version and an enterprise version with additional functionality. The only part of what they did that I took issue with is re-licensing the FOSS portion under a commercial license. Had they left the FOSS portion under the OSS license and simply added commercial code on top I would have 100% continued to commit patches.