this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
312 points (98.4% liked)

Open Source

31203 readers
204 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
312
SF ads call out tech firms for not paying for open source (www.theregister.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mlg 34 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] earth_walker 26 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The artwork they did for that billboard is sick

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

Wish it have a small "designed in Gimp", "designed in inkscape" or "designed in kitra" Watermark in the bottom right corner

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Does anyone know the actual designer behind them? I would be curious to know.

[–] AustralianSimon 21 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ikidd 7 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks 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.'”

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.

[–] TunaCowboy 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yes you have. Please explain to me the additional context. I seem to not grasp it.

What else are they doing then asking? Doing some marketing around it? If you get pressured by that you should not lead a company.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

Sorry, you may be right; I was just thinking of licensing in general.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

None. Those things are incompatible with each other.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

Our feudal patrons are so stingy!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Very nice.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

https://media3.giphy.com/media/l0MYKBx3N6VCrFwaI/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952r03ccdog3rk9dlr1waovk18p1w3fzhe98264atfo&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g

This thread