this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
151 points (98.7% liked)

Opensource

1415 readers
11 users here now

A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!

CreditsIcon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

The parasite class didn't get rich by paying people what they're worth, and I doubt they're going to start now

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

On the one hand I like the sentiment of paying for open source software. But on the other hand the free part of free software is kind of very on the nose.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The free part means freedom. Not lack of payment.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

And those companies use the freedom.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

And shaming those that leech off the commons for profit without contributing back is a time-honored tradition.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Maybe the software license should have been one that only allows non commercial use or the open sourcing of all derivative code.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This is hard though. You present commercial license, and you'll cut out a good 80-90% of the potential users, which means the OSS project is way more likely to die.

I think CTOs should be okay with allowing their employees to contribute to projects they use. In my first hand experience, they're more likely to say "no we shouldn't". It's unfair really.

[–] onlinepersona 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

This is the same argument as "capital flight". It's a bad one as most opensource isn't used commercially. There are thousands of projects maybe millions of projects out there not found anywhere in commercial projects. Most aren't written to end up being used commercially either, but if they ever are, they should get paid.

Arguing against adding a line to get paid in case it's used commercially, is as bad an argument as taxing the rich "because one day I might be rich".

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I guess it's time to push for more AGPL

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

This is the way.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

Meanwhile, corpos scrambling to take down their "we ❤️ [profiting from] open source" banners.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

makes thing for free

Doesn't get paid for it

Why not make a license that makes it free if you contribute to development and paid for if you don't?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

Because for those using it non commercially it would be prohibitively expensive.