133

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 โ€“ 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 โ€“ but project co-founder Chad Whitacre wants bigger firms to pay their dues, too.

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] mlg@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago

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.

[-] AustralianSimon@lemmy.world 12 points 3 hours ago

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.

[-] bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net 15 points 3 hours ago

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.

[-] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 hours ago

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.

[-] RQG@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

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.

[-] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 3 points 3 hours ago

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.

[-] TunaCowboy@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago

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.

[-] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 hour ago

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?

[-] TunaCowboy@lemmy.world 0 points 50 minutes ago

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.

[-] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 hours ago

"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.'โ€

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.

[-] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 14 points 4 hours ago

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).

[-] itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago

Yeah, it all depends on what agreement was made when they started using the software.

[-] GravitySpoiled@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 hours ago

Which licence is open source but demands payment from companies if they use it?

[-] TheButtonJustSpins@infosec.pub 3 points 2 hours ago

There are licenses that allow for free non-commercial/personal use but paid business use.

[-] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 hours ago
[-] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 hours ago

Our feudal patrons are so stingy!

this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
133 points (98.5% liked)

Open Source

30851 readers
563 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS