- cross-posted to:
- opensource@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- opensource@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
The parasite class didn’t get rich by paying people what they’re worth, and I doubt they’re going to start now
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”.
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.
Yes but they frequently ask for optional donations too. Are you a parasite for not donating?
If you are making major money off of the library and cannot spare a PR or some cash, then yes, you are a parasite.
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.
The free part means freedom. Not lack of payment.
And those companies use the freedom.
And shaming those that leech off the commons for profit without contributing back is a time-honored tradition.
Maybe the software license should have been one that only allows non commercial use or the open sourcing of all derivative code.
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.
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”.
I guess it’s time to push for more AGPL
This is the way.
Meanwhile, corpos scrambling to take down their “we ❤️ [profiting from] open source” banners.
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?
Because for those using it non commercially it would be prohibitively expensive.
I hope this Doesn’t catch on. It is open for a reason. Damn drama makers.
You hope the idea that “commerical companies that have profited off of FOSS feel compelled and pledge to contribute to the maintainence and development of those projects” doesn’t catch on?
Why?
I think he meant the idea of shaming companies for not donating to things.
It will probably not be a surprise to you, but I don’t see a problem with shaming companies either.
Yeah, kinda funny that I further the idea of open being fully open, and get downvoted. In an open source community. Funny.
Open is open, should have as few strings attached as possible.
And tolerant people should be tolerant, except when met with intolerance. If people are leveraging other people’s good will both selfishly and expansively, why should you let them continue to do it?
This stifles the project in no way, the small individuals that use it will still use be able to use it.
