back

by thunderbong·6y ago·view on hn ↗
Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with expecting payment for your work if someone else decides to sell it. Why should 'open source' get conflated with free (as in gratis)?

For me, open source has been an incredible way to learn software - it's syntax, it's architecture, it's control flow, it's gotchas.

From my understanding of the license [1], you can see the code, learn from it, do whatever you want with it, modify it if you so please, improve on it, whatever. The only thing you cannot do is sell it. Because you've taken someone else's idea in the first place.

I see this happening all the freakin' time and it pisses me off no end. If I suggest a software to someone, the first thing they as is 'Is it open source?' What they really mean is 'Is it free?' Why? If someone is expecting to get paid for creating software for others, why is the feeling not reciprocated towards the person who's created the software in the first place?

From what I've seen, most managers and software engineers, expect to get paid for their work but all the software which helps them make that money, they expect for free.

I find that attitude extremely hypocritical, honestly.

[1]: https://commonsclause.com/

2 comments
Why should open source get conflated with things that are NOT open source? Putting restrictions around "commercial" use (which is notoriously hard to define) is not open source. Discriminating against fields of endeavor is not open source.

If you want to get paid for developing genuine open source software, there are things you can do to that effect. Get paid for support (even maintaining the code is support). Offer to highlight companies that support your software (even if the highlighting is quite trivial, this is enough to unlock 'marketing' expenses and make it easier for business-oriented entities to support you). Start a Patreon page. There are lots of things that can be done without adding any licensing restrictions.

> "without adding any license restrictions"

That would imply public domain. Every license has some licensing restrictions. MIT, BSD, and associated ones are closest to that, but still have restrictions. "Open source" in the literal sense in English is where the source is open to be looked at by everyone. Lots of software is like that, even fully commercial offerings. AGPL, GPL, and co have pretty drastic limitations on commercial usage (much more than the Commons Clause), but are obviously open source. The author should decide licensing, and if the source is available to be perused-- the English language would tend to call that, "open source". I think "OSI Approved Open Source License" would be a better phrase than the linguistically vague "open source". English has proper nouns for that sort of thing, and if we can go around writing "GNU/Linux", I think specifying the _type_ of open source license really isn't too much to ask for.

There are some licenses effectively like public domain, such as zero-clause BSD, CC0, WTFPL, Unlicense, etc.

GPL does not restrict commercial use any more than non-commercial use. What it does restrict is adding additional restrictions, it requires source code to be distributed, and it does not allow disallowing the user to substitute their own version.

If the source is available to be perused I think it is called "shared source" (or "source available"); "open source" is a subset of that, and is according to the OSI definition. "Free software" is also a subset of "source available". "OSI approved" is a subset of "open source" because OSI approved does not include public domain, even if it is still open source (which in some cases it is) (also some stuff that meets the OSI definition (by both words and intention) might not be OSI approved because OSI has not looked at it yet). And then there is also "FOSS".

> Putting restrictions around "commercial" use (which is notoriously hard to define) is not open source.

That's... somewhat accurate.

Let's not pretend the GPL team itself didn't have issues with Tivo-ization, that prompted license changes.

Cloud servic-ization is the virtualization of hardware modification locks.

So call it opinions about "commercial" or use another word, but the GPL definitely has them.

> Cloud servic-ization is the virtualization of hardware modification locks.

Hence why the FSF advocates the AGPL for software that's designed to be performed "as a service" over a computer network. But "no tivoization" and AGPL clauses do not deny these uses; they simply enable the end user of the software to exercise her rights with respect to it.

Then don't call it open source, because that word in almost all cases involves free use regardless of commercial interest.

It's all well and good, and nothing immoral is done by offering code under this license, but that doesn't make it open source.