zlacker

[return to "What comes after open source? Bruce Perens is working on it"]
1. andy99+Vi1[view] [source] 2023-12-28 00:21:37
>>gnufx+(OP)
I want my worst enemies to be able to use my open source code against me and my competitors to be able to re-purpose it to try and drive me out of business. When I want to write code with different restrictions, I do that and I don't call it open source.

If people want to create and promote their own utopian models that's their business. Personally I'd want nothing to do with that, and it definitely should not be called open source, just like any restrictive license.

On another note, a transaction is a meeting of the minds. When most people release open source software they want nothing in return and are owed nothing. That's how I feel about it. People who think they are owed something are like beggars who do miming or some such in the street and call it work. Nobody asked for it, some find it interesting and you might be able to guilt someone into paying but they didn't hire you and don't owe you anything. You can just not do it, it's only a job if you're explicitly hired.

◧◩
2. wavemo+PF1[view] [source] 2023-12-28 04:08:42
>>andy99+Vi1
I also generally feel like most of the really substantial open-source projects are able to get a good amount of donations and corporate sponsors. People DO pay, when the thing you're creating (an operating system, a programming language, a database) is complex and business-critical.

But nowadays it seems like everyone who creates a JavaScript package that concats two strings together, wants to be able to quit their day job and live on donations. It's just not realistic.

[go to top]