@ramsey I kindly request that any corporations building upon my work puts developer-hours into at least proofreading it! I develop my software opensource specifically so you can do that, so please follow through!
Also I'd ask corporations to pass on the software freedom I granted them forward to their users, but that's another matter...
@alcinnz I understand the desire to make their contributions copyleft. Unfortunately, a lot of organizations have policies against the use of copylefted software, so even if they don’t directly use your library, because of the dependency chain, they might not be able to use other libraries that depend on your library. As the developer, you have to consider your goals and these trade-offs.
The older I get, the more appealing the GPL becomes to me.
@ramsey I imagine policies against copyleft software would evaporate pretty quickly if a lot fewer developers were willing to donate their free labor toward software that corporations could freely modify and redistribute or sell without having to share the source code for their modifications.
@ramsey@alcinnz for me, I release all NY stuff on GPL licenses specifically because I don't want people taking my hard work, folding it into their own thing, selling it, and not contributing back. If companies have policies against copyleft, that's their problem.
I think we should all use copyleft licenses by default, if we really care about substantive freedom for all rather than just the freedom to profit for free off donated work.
@flabberghaster@ramsey@alcinnz I agree with this take so deeply. Not a lot of software engineers I talk to seem to be in a position to care about this or feel this way. Thank you for saying it.
I personally have felt, at least thus far in my career, overwhelming incentive to work on copyrightable, private codebases. For work. #Capitalism. Perhaps that is why so few comparatively seem to act upon this idea.
@Jdreben@ramsey@alcinnz that's legit. To be fair, most of the stuff I release is not that useful to other people, and most of the code I write is closed source internal to my company. So it's easy for me to say, since i'm not trying to get people to buy my open source thing and make a living on it.
But, I do think copyleft is far better, all else being equal, so when I do release stuff, even though no one looks at it, I do it out of principle.
@flabberghaster@Jdreben@ramsey I would say, as much as I love advocating for freesoftware I don't believe every internal tool should be published.
If anything, the opposite. There's so many projects to dig through for dependencies, we don't need to throw projects not intended for general use onto the pile!
@Jdreben@flabberghaster@ramsey Work needs to be put into floating the best solutions to the top, which from everything I read & experience is a bigger problem for how corporates use opensource than how hobbyists do...
@alcinnz@flabberghaster@ramsey I think I feel more sadness / frustration about all the repeatedly implemented closed source solutions of the same problems that are surely out there and NOT available on the internet, than I do about having too many homegrown but publicly available solutions.
@alcinnz@flabberghaster@ramsey That’s an interesting point and I hear you. Ultimately the best solution(s) will win if all are made available though right? Idk that’s my response to that point. I’d rather have everything and it be messy than neat and incomplete.
@Jdreben@alcinnz@flabberghaster This already exists in several forms. I get donations through GitHub Sponsors, and I also earn a small amount from Tidelift. It amounts to about $200 a month, total, so I can’t live on it, which is why I have a day job, but I don’t do open source development for them.
Its a near-certainty though that I'd receive less money for the project than I'd want to spend, especially considering how many others are in the same boat!
@Jdreben@alcinnz@flabberghaster The incentives for the hobbyists working on major open source projects are varied, but they’re rarely financially motivated (at least when starting out).
@ramsey@alcinnz@flabberghaster Right. It’s a crazy misalignment of incentives. I don’t see a clean economic model for open source though so I see how it has come to be this way. Many of those hobbyists have full time jobs working on closed source that makes their ‘hobby’ possible.
@Jdreben@alcinnz@flabberghaster A lot of open source software is written by hobbyists who do it in their spare time, rather than by the companies who freely use and depend on the work of those hobbyists.
Hopefully 2023 will be a good year for donating to open source contributors. A rising tide for #OSS would lift all of us into a more technological sophisticated world.
@Jdreben@flabberghaster@ramsey Also it's worth pointing out the role package repos play: They collect quality projects making them easy to install via a corresponding "package manager".
Not that every package repo holds themselves to this role, some popular ones (e.g. NPM) quite the opposite!
@alcinnz@Jdreben@flabberghaster The main reason I create open source software is because I enjoy seeing others use and benefit from something I've created. I suspect other open source maintainers have similar sentiments, so package repos provide a distribution channel that helps satisfy that goal.
@ramsey@alcinnz@flabberghaster A package repo that charges Fortune 500 and other companies with > some millions of ARR to pay based on their usage of #FOSS.
Open source developers should be paid by companies regardless of if they are hired by them, if they are building the software they are using
Open source is the backbone of modern capitalism. Something like this is the only truly fair way open source can be used by for profit companies.
@Jdreben@ramsey@alcinnz Lots of companies do this; usually they sell support for existing FOSS projects, or you pay them to add something to a FOSS project. Rather than paying someone to implement some code for you, you pay them to help fix things with code that already exists.
@ramsey@alcinnz I think the list of companies that have "absolutely no" policies that prohibit use of copyleft licensed software is shorter than many believe.
@flabberghaster@ramsey@alcinnz to me, I have the exact opposite experience. The older I get, the more I appreciate having my code used and not stifling innovation.
We're seeing more and more companies contribute back to permissively licensed codebases, since it's in their best interest to do so.
Juniper learned this lesson the hard way, and paved the ideological way that countless other companies follow: keep ONLY the money-making bits as proprietary and open source everything else.
Open sourcing as much as possible enables the community to support their work and eases long-term maintenance burden, lessoning differences between upstream and downstream.
Netflix, Intel, Dell, Apple, Cisco, NetApp, Chelsio Communications, Mellanox, just to name a few.
It used to be that companies would not open source their work, but that's certainly not as common today as it used to be. Yet the perception that it is still common persists.
I'm objecting to it being popular to build proprietary software upon opensource! I want it so that anyone can request to see the source code they run on their computer, and I want to minimize the need for servers!
@lattera@ramsey@alcinnz In my ideal world there would be no companies. Why are companies who we assume will "Innovate"? Innovate what, for whom? I don't consider a company making a product that sells better to be that high of a goal for me. What I want to foster is people being a able to make use of things, and to do that I want to keep things from getting locked away in a vault. If that makes it harder for Ratheon to use it in a better missile or Google to automate someone's job away? Good.
Albeit, since creating an account, I haven't received any donations, so I can't confirm it functions as intended, but: it seems as if it has the intention to be similar to Patreon, but well, open source and operated as a non-profit which purportedly does not take any fees. @alcinnz@flabberghaster@ramsey
I don't think any of the work I've done in my career even has the potential of harm, and that's speaking of someone who spent some time working in the NSA's backyard.
Personally I'd also advocate for enough of a UBI that anyone can afford to put time into what art, software, activities, or whatever they value. And so people can choose whichever of these they want to fund to become even better!
@Jdreben@ramsey@alcinnz@flabberghaster Might be a bit of a hot take, but regarding the economics: IMO, open source and libre software ought to be publicly funded, as it is a public good. Reallocate government budgets away from proprietary stuff from the likes of Google and Microsoft and put it toward developing the digital commons.
@freakazoid@lykso@ramsey@alcinnz@flabberghaster That's my opinion on the state of things in the US as well. Sadly. Perhaps electing younger and more tech aware representatives will one day change that.
For now, love to see GDPR and right to repair and USB-C and such actually fought for in the EU.
@Jdreben @lykso It's certainly not going to happen in a country with as powerful a commercial software industry as the US has. Or if it did the intent would probably be to destroy copyleft.
@Jdreben@alcinnz@lykso@flabberghaster This. A UBI would be better than putting money into open source software. If they directly funded OSS, they’d have to figure out who and what they intend to fund. UBI would leave individuals free to take some risks and build things that matter to them.
@ramsey@Jdreben@alcinnz@flabberghaster I agree. A UBI seems like it'd be much harder to make happen politically, though. OTOH, maybe that's exactly the sort of "big, hairy, audacious goal" for which the present moment calls.