"I support it only if it's open source" should be a more common viewpoint
Technology
44
Beiträge
36
Kommentatoren
1
Aufrufe
-
Technically, according to the GPLv3 you don’t need to make the source code publically available. If you sell software with binaries then their source code must be included with it. If you’re Red Hat you can also add an additional ToS to the website that states if you buy the software you can’t freely distribute the source code you download from the website or you will be sued to oblivion.
You must make the source available to anyone you distributed the binaries to. Where in Red Hats TOS does it say they will sue you? As far as I understand it the reserve the right to terminate the service you are paying for. But your rights to source for the binaries provided are not affected.
-
I don't mind paying for software.
I want free as in freedom, not free as in beer. Though a free beer might not be the worst thing in the world
Sure, and I recognize that it's not a great metaphor. But I'm thinking about it from the developer side. Open Source software is not motivated by profits, and profit motivates a lot of developers. Some of the best software projects were actualized by a few committed individuals who were passionate about the purpose. But then you have Microsoft which tries to tie bonuses to lines of code, and ends up with bloated garbage because peoples is peoples.
Open source is good, in the same way free lunches for school children are good. The benefits are innumerable. But it's not feasible to expect every developer to commit to open source projects when their efforts might not be rewarded.
-
You’re allowed, but as long as anyone else can do it for free, you can’t build a business model on selling it. At most you can sell something else (support, cloud compute, some solution that makes using it easier etc.).
Canonical seems to make some decent money off of their services.
-
I’m an open source developer who’s put thousands of hours of work into my open source projects.
- Amount of money I’ve made from writing and maintaining open source projects: $0
- Amount of money I’ve made from writing and maintaining closed source projects: idk exactly, but probably close to $1,000,000 (over ten years of working in big tech)
I get wanting to use open source software. I want to use open source software. I want to write open source software. I do write open source software. But please understand that I only do that because I enjoy it. I also need to pay the bills, and there’s not much money in writing open source software.
If you value an open source project, especially if it’s just a small development team that doesn’t sell anything, please donate to them.
Right now, I run an email service, https://port87.com/, and it is technically closed source. But it’s built on my open source projects, Svelte Material UI, Nymph.js, and Nephele. Probably about 70% of the code that makes up Port87 is open source, and if you use Port87, you’re helping me continue to develop those open source projects. So even if you don’t donate to open source projects, there are other ways to contribute. Support companies who support open source projects.
The early mobile phone apps conditioned people to expect things free.
I donate to any project, open or closed source if it's worth it.
-
What are your thoughts? Any counter-counter points to the author's response to most concerns regarding open source?
This is a strange and unappealing way of reasoning about free/libre software. He sounds like he wants to be one of the sharks leveraging technology against people. I think this guy should brush up on the writings of Richard Stallman.
-
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. What you said is true.
It reminded me of an older writing about it:
Open source doesn’t make money because it isn’t designed to make money
-
Technically, according to the GPLv3 you don’t need to make the source code publically available. If you sell software with binaries then their source code must be included with it. If you’re Red Hat you can also add an additional ToS to the website that states if you buy the software you can’t freely distribute the source code you download from the website or you will be sued to oblivion.
You cannot make restrictions to the distribution of the source code under the GPL
-
What are your thoughts? Any counter-counter points to the author's response to most concerns regarding open source?
Counterpoint: "I support drone strikes in random developing countries as long as the drones are open source" doesn't really sound that good lol
-
What are your thoughts? Any counter-counter points to the author's response to most concerns regarding open source?
Paying for closed source software is kind of like voting for your oppressors. Using closed source software is literally like giving away access to your computer in hope that your computer may be used in a way you’d prefer… The software economy is the only reason I don’t create software. The customer is rarely the user.
-
Counterpoint: "I support drone strikes in random developing countries as long as the drones are open source" doesn't really sound that good lol
How about, if we must have military drones, they should be open source.
-
What are your thoughts? Any counter-counter points to the author's response to most concerns regarding open source?
Consider, though, the value you received in non-monetary terms. How much would you have had to pay?
-
How about, if we must have military drones, they should be open source.
Yea this phrasing sounds a lot better
-
I’m an open source developer who’s put thousands of hours of work into my open source projects.
- Amount of money I’ve made from writing and maintaining open source projects: $0
- Amount of money I’ve made from writing and maintaining closed source projects: idk exactly, but probably close to $1,000,000 (over ten years of working in big tech)
I get wanting to use open source software. I want to use open source software. I want to write open source software. I do write open source software. But please understand that I only do that because I enjoy it. I also need to pay the bills, and there’s not much money in writing open source software.
If you value an open source project, especially if it’s just a small development team that doesn’t sell anything, please donate to them.
Right now, I run an email service, https://port87.com/, and it is technically closed source. But it’s built on my open source projects, Svelte Material UI, Nymph.js, and Nephele. Probably about 70% of the code that makes up Port87 is open source, and if you use Port87, you’re helping me continue to develop those open source projects. So even if you don’t donate to open source projects, there are other ways to contribute. Support companies who support open source projects.
Yup, I'm the same way. If I could work in FOSS, I'd be happy to take a pay cut, but FOSS doesn't pay anywhere near good enough. So it'll remain a hobby.
As such, I'm pretty reasonable about what needs to be open source, and what's fine being proprietary. For example:
- OS - must be FOSS
- games - proprietary is fine, but no privileged access (e.g. kernel level anti-cheat)
- web browser - must be FOSS
- web services - proprietary is fine, provided they don't collect a creepy amount of info about me
Basically, the more risk there is of a security issue, the more I expect it to be FOSS. And I'm willing to help out too. I've submitted patches to Lemmy and other FOSS projects I use, and I'll donate something similar to what I'd pay for a proprietary app for certain projects.
-
What are your thoughts? Any counter-counter points to the author's response to most concerns regarding open source?
It"s a difficult viewpoint given where money flows. A better method shoupd be more government funded software, with a FOSS requirement since it's tax dollars.
That being said, I'm very fortunate to be working for a company that releases software under MIT and/or SSPLv1, and we use almost exclusively Open Source for our infrastructure and back office (decisions I made, but had the strong, proactive backing of our CEO/Founders).
