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

Opensource

1314 readers
19 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] 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I guess it's time to push for more AGPL

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

This is the way.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 5 days 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

[–] FizzyOrange -5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I don't think you can blame them for this. How many resources do you use without voluntarily paying extra above your legal requirements? Do you donate every time you go to free libraries, museums, parks, cathedrals, etc? I certainly don't and I don't think that makes me "the parasite class".

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Free libraries, museums, parks are paid for by taxes. So yes, you do pay for them. I've been in a bunch of cathedrals that charged for entry, yes.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 days 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] 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The free part means freedom. Not lack of payment.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

And those companies use the freedom.

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

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

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 days 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] 5 points 5 days 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 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days 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] 4 points 5 days ago

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days 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 days ago

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