Conversation

Patrick McKenzie
@patio11
The OSS community has yet to come to grips with “Companies with $50 million in the bank send an incredible volume of support requests to people who are worried about making their $600 rent, and the community and culture in OSS makes this feel normal.”
Quote Tweet
Devon ☀️
@devonzuegel
"A module is like a piece of digital property, a right that can be transferred, but you don't get any benefit owning it, like being able to sell or rent it... however you still retain the responsibility." gist.github.com/dominictarr/9f
20
1,605
Pete Keen
@zrail
Replying to
@patio11
A huge part of this is the Free Software zealots that perpetuate this mythos that charging for open source software is wrong.
4
20
Pete Keen
@zrail
Replying to
@jeevesbond
and
@patio11
I don’t think Stallman’s opinions are relevant to this discussion. FSF came about because large companies kept source closed and unmodifiable. We have a very different situation now, where large companies are building themselves on top of unpaid labor.
2
6
Daniel Micay
@DanielMicay
Replying to
@cogment
@zrail
and 2 others
The companies being forced to publish their changes to the code doesn't provide compensation to the developers. In most cases, there will be no useful changes to the code and someone would need to dedicate time to reviewing and polishing them up to ever incorporate them anyway.
2
cogment
@cogment
Replying to
@DanielMicay
@zrail
and 2 others
Dual licensing with AGPL is perfectly legitimate way of funding the development of open source libraries within the current institutional. However, that doesn’t really work for applications. My response would be to increase public funding for open source software. The US
1
Show replies