SF ads call out tech firms for not paying for open source
SF ads call out tech firms for not paying for open source
Puts Chief Tightwad Officers on notice
Drivers passing through San Francisco have a new roadside distraction to consider: billboards calling out businesses that don't cough up for the open source code that they use.
The signs are the work of the Open Source Pledge – a group that launched earlier this month. It asks businesses that make use of open source code to pledge $2,000 per developer to support projects that develop the code. So far, 25 companies have signed up – but project co-founder Chad Whitacre wants bigger firms to pay their dues, too.
This is why lots of software has started adopting SSPL license which doesn't actually fix the problem and isn't a FOSS license.
I still think a new license scheme should be considered though. Giants like AWS and Google have been profiteering off of FOSS for way too long now.
AGPL has been deemed generally successful in this regard because it has been upheld in court cases and forced companies to comply, which it seems to work pretty great for SaaS.
The problem is these giants will usually just choose a more permissive alternative anyway. Both MongoDB and Redis have forks that they can use, and GPL itself is permissive enough for private forking being legal.
No one has to pay anyone because its Open Source. Demanding it, calling out after usage is the wrong move. If someone does not want others to use the code without paying, then they need to use a license that does not allow that without a contract.
I'm all for Open Source and not against paying. But this move here seems to be wrong to me. Maybe create an eco system to pay for the software to use it, if that is what bothers you (as the one who writes and maintains the code).
Yeah, it all depends on what agreement was made when they started using the software.
This recent morality policing about contributions upstream is counterproductive to FOSS overall, and I honestly have to wonder if some group of FOSS averse corporations or a state actor is behind all the sudden drama.
Right? For me the free as in freedom always had the upside and downside of people have the freedom to use it how they want. Within the very lenient license which might be in use of course. This can include the freedom to do things with the software which the creators and contributors might not agree with or like.
But in the end a certain trust in humanity and the concept of freedom itself mean that we believe the net sum of making your software free will be positive for everyone. And to this day I haven't managed to become enough of a cynic to change my mind on this.
Its possible to dicuss licenses which helps prevent certain abuse cases. In fact those already exist. However people talk like this is the main issue of FOSS which I don't think it is at all.
I'd like to understand your point of view, why do you think that it's counterproductive?
The software is supposed to be free as in speech, not beer, ergo you can use it for whatever you want. If right out of the gate, GNU was like "you better contribute back if you use this!" nobody would use or contribute to it. All this does is produce drama and reduce use because of negative perceptions, it is bad for corporate adoption and adoption overall. If browbeating people like an ass worked we would live in a very different world. It does not.
I don't think that there is such company trying to destroy FOSS. To me its more likely that people get annoyed that companies use Open Source without paying any money to the developers who maintain it. And there are lot of places trying to integrate a way to pay for Open Source software. And I'm all for it! But it needs to be confronted upfront, maybe part of the license if that is what they want. Not like a patent troll does with after usage.
I understand why its annoying, but why licensing it this way then? It was part of the contract letting them use without requiring any payment. Also developers are not responsible for any damage the code does, as they weren't paid at all. They are not responsible to do any work.
If this goes on, then many companies might start abandoning Open Source. Because if people start shaming them and asking to pay for something they never signed up, it could harm the FOSS world. There will be people who are not happy with the low payment and want more, because others get more too. Then fake devs jump in to steal Open Source (forking and rebranding) to just shame companies and require payment too.
It feels to me like a bunch of "rules for thee but not for me" type people co-opting a movement.
I don't have to pay cause I'm special. But you do.
The artwork they did for that billboard is sick
Wish it have a small "designed in Gimp", "designed in inkscape" or "designed in kitra" Watermark in the bottom right corner
Does anyone know the actual designer behind them? I would be curious to know.
The whole contributions piece ignored a lot of bigger companies use their own developers to work on open source as well so monetary contributions aren't always necessary.
Certainly. Quantify that shit; at $100/hr, push 20 hours worth of PRs per dev. But the ratio of companies that do that instead of bullying FOSS projects into doing free work to suit their particular needs is pretty poor.
"I had one conversation with a representative from a larger firm and he's like: 'Chad, you're asking me to spend ten million on maintainers.'”
Whitacre affirmed that request, and pointed out the firm "spends ten million on something anyway."
Apparently Chad Whitacre is either a moody 15 year old or a fucking moron.
Which licence is open source but demands payment from companies if they use it?
There are licenses that allow for free non-commercial/personal use but paid business use.
Do you have an example? I am pretty sure that a FOSS license which requires companies to pay is impossible.
Open Source guarantees that anyone can give the software to a company for free:
"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
And it guarantees that the company can then use it freely:
"The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business [...]"
Quotes from the Open Source Definition.
None. Those things are incompatible with each other.
You get to choose the license (or write your own) when you develop software. If you don't want a permissive license don't license your software that way, your motivation clearly doesn't align with these licenses anyway.
Seems intentionally adversarial.
If you don't want a permissive license don't license your software that way, your motivation clearly doesn't align with these licenses anyway.
Why does asking for money not align with the licenses?
I never said it does, are you intentionally ignoring the context in which my comment was made?
I have no love for the c-suite, but framing the OP as simply 'asking for money' is either ignorant or disingenuous.
Our feudal patrons are so stingy!
Very nice.
