Hacker News Reader

I think I agree with you?

Way back when (not that far back, from my point of view, but longer than many denizens of this site have been alive), we used to have usenet and ftp sites and tarballs that compiled (usually) on some subset of Unixen.

I liked that. You could throw up period tarballs, with Readmes (they were .txt, not .md, but close enough), and usually had instructions like ./configure; make; make install.

People could yell at you on comp.graphics. Usually they didn't - and often discussions would ensue. Maybe I was young (if I ever was?), but it felt pretty zen to me at the time.

More recently, I had a package - I forget what it was - I think it might have been a python package that would take PlantUML-like-syntax things and turn them into SVGs or something. I put it up on github thinking that this would be the equivalent of throwing a tarball over the wall.

OMG! I was wrong. The tickets/issues/demands/complaints - not questions - were beyond belief!

I've never asked for compensation for an open-sourced package - high or low quality - but I could see that the shrill demands might drive one to want to demand compensation!

These days I've more-or-less retired back to throwing tar-balls to people who know me and ask me for them. I still ask for no money. I still respond to emails with questions. But I refuse to be held hostage to "the community".

Serious question to Parent: Does that make me a selfish asshole?

No, not at all. You don't owe anyone anything - but please consider their demands an indicator of unmet need. Github and other platforms make it easy for users and colleagues to contact project engineers and maintainers with new demands and PRs. You also get so much more exposure and help - but it's not without downside, as you say.

Of course, you're free to step up and solve their problems or ignore them. Offer consulting services if you'd like. Thank you for your code and your generosity either way you choose.

But, and this is key, if you choose to ignore the issues/requests and/or only accept consulting contracts to fix them: be up front about it in your README. Turn off issues on github and put the fact that you don't accept PRs in your repo notice/description.

Now, if you do that, don't be surprised if someone forks your code and picks up the maintainership. Don't try to take back your open source code. Don't complain about the other party's stewardship - a role you explicitly chose to abdicate. Don't sabotage the community.

Those are pretty much the very few things that would make you a selfish asshole in my book, friend. Thank you for your code and I'm sorry other people can be real assholes sometimes - especially to people who give their hard work away to prevent others from maybe having to do the same.

Fortunately, there are usually others who will step up and help maintain the project and deal with these demanding ungrateful bastards - seek them out openly, they're invaluable friends. If we're upfront and honest with each other about needing help - we're stronger together.

Hell, I welcome the fork!

It's why I toss it over the wall: "This was useful to me for a moment. Maybe it might be for you too. Good luck!"

Perfection.

"Don't try to take back your open source code."

Why not? It's yours. Burn it to the ground if it is too much trouble, maybe people will stop being ungrateful.

We control our code. If we feel like open is good, fine. If we find out it has negative externalities - why put up with that?

You don't control copies of your code made under the terms of the irrevocable world-wide license you gave. You don't have to host it, but you can't stop other people from doing so.

Copies of your code are effectively no longer yours once you've licensed your code. So, essentially your code, as it was, is no longer yours. You don't own it in any meaningful way. Deal with that fact or don't post it in the first place.

That's not true unless the license specifically transfers ownership or it's just public domain with no license at all. In the latter case jurisdictions differ in how they interpret that.

I dislike the sentiment here. Open source was supposed to be a mutual gift culture, not a take culture.

That you no longer own your code is effectively true. It is also not true. Of course, you likely still own the copyright - the sole legal right to distribute copies of the code. The thing is, copyleft - the prime principle under which open source and free software operate - is a brilliant legal hack; it makes owning the copyright essentially meaningless.

You see, as owning the copyright means that only you have the right to distribute your code, free software/open source licences make that ownership meaningless by granting a licence to anyone who has the code the right to distribute the code - under certain terms, usually the same terms as under which they themselves were allowed to distribute the code. That is, you may still own the copyright on copyleft licensed code - but the distinction of owning that copyright is pointless because its purpose and benefit is replaced by that of mere possession and distribution. The copyright becomes effectively worthless and even more worthless if you incorporate other's copyleft licensed work into your own - because then you can no longer easily re-license it.

Hence 'copyleft': it turns copyright on its head.

Still, you're technically right; so, congratulations for that, I suppose.

¯ \_(ツ)_/¯

Open Source/Free Software cultures are mutual gift cultures. It's just that no take-backs are allowed. If they were the whole exercise would be pointless.

I was being legalistic. Technically you still "own" your copyright if you release something GPL, but the license grants certain rights that can't be revoked. So we're both correct.

>OMG! I was wrong. The tickets/issues/demands/complaints - not questions - were beyond belief!

Welcome to the real open source community where there are people, not robots, involved. People tend to suck sooner or later (unfortunately).

> Does that make me a selfish asshole?

Nope.

With my own OSS projects, my attitude is that I don't owe anybody anything. I'm happy to help, take suggestions, take code contributions, etc. but it's not because I owe anybody that. As a result, if people are rude, demanding, or unpleasant, I tend to ignore them. I don't have the spare time or energy for that, and I figure that they're the ones being assholes, not me.

I don't understand the licensing of the parts library. I wanted to use it in my own tool I was creating and I see from the parts library LICENSE.txt:

> All graphics and documentation of Fritzing are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareALike 3.0 Unported. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ for the full description.

But in their FAQ they say:

> However, we do not allow the use of Fritzing part graphics in other software systems at the moment. If you think we should make an exception for you, please contact us.

What gives? Is it creative commons or not?

If you are someone who creates a part you want it to be available in every software out there. You don't want to create the same part in Eagle and then in KiCad, and then in Fritzing, and then in 5 other ones as well.

Submitting it to something that is Creative Commons has that expectation.

Fritzing is effectively saying, it's "creative commons" but we're still allowed to completely control it and prevent others from using it?

That's exactly the opposite of what CC says. WTF?

That kind of licensing is the toxic bullshit I'm talking about. Ignore and avoid.

Yeah, I'm ambivalent about this issue.

I've been significantly contributing to the OSS world for a very, very long time. I never did so with the expectation that I would see a dime from that activity -- that's not the reason I put the effort in. So, my instinct is to say that OSS devs knew what deal was from the very start, and if they're not OK with "unpaid work", then they should stop doing it rather than complain.

On the other hand, OSS has become critical infrastructure, and as such, the stability that comes with people being able to earn a living with it seems like a desirable thing.

So, I don't know. I think there are valid points all around on this.

That said, I also think that what happened with Fritzing is simply wrong regardless.

Open source does not have to be charity. You are allowed to sell OSS. It's not even against the spirit.

Selling open source software itself is rather pointless - anyone can copy the code for free and it's not even wrong do so. You sell services based on the code and on changing the code - not gating access to the code itself. You don't "sell OSS" - you sell around it and make money from it - not by it. It's unsurprising people continue to be confused on this point if we continue to be so unclear about it on the average.

Users don't care about the code. They care about convenience.

You're damn right. Make it easy for users to use your code, to get help when they need it and don't entrap them via lock-in mechanisms so they can leave when they need to leave and they'll beat a path to your door.

A good example is Synergy (Symless). The code is open-souce and freely accessible, but the compiled binaries are available for a fee.

Nothing stops you from grabbing the code and compile it, or you can pay for the convenience.

You can sell the compiled artifacts as well. OSS doesn’t mean free (as in beer) either. If you have a license that says that you must pay money to operate it commercially, that’s another way to make money from OSS.

> If you have a license that says that you must pay money to operate it commercially, that’s another way to make money from OSS.

No. Absolutely not. Licences which add restrictions based on field of endeavour are not Open Source licences. Period.

https://opensource.org/docs/osd

Point 6. Period.

> You can sell the compiled artifacts as well.

Yes, of course you can sell the service of providing compiled binaries. Everyone will be annoyed if you charge for the builds of your software - but that's your prerogative. Someone else will just provide a free unofficial build (See CentOS, etc) if it's useful. Suit yourself. shrug

We should discriminate against evil. Period.

Of course you shouldn't contribute to evil as you see it. Contributing to that against which you fight is stupid.

The problem with applying that to licences is that they have to apply everywhere, to everyone, equally.

Who defines what evil is? You? Me? The person with the most power? The person with the least? How do you measure that? Is there even an absolute definition of evil? I seriously doubt such a definition exists. I'd go so far as to say I hope one doesn't - thinking of the implications.

I wish you the best of luck - because that's all it'll be; in terms of denying evil access to your software.

Of course, your licence choice matters because we all know that evil follows all the rules - especially those which don't suit its purposes. /s

That's why my license choice is closed source.

Suit yourself - though, if I'm being honest, I'm wondering why you're even in this thread.

I'm keeping an open mind. You haven't changed it. I did get more evidence that open sourcing software doesn't pay the bills.

I don't know why you're so angry about that. Calling people names. Implying people don't even have a right to speak on a topic.

Something is emotionally driving you. You're deeply resentful.

The only thing I'm resenting at the moment is people like you wasting my time with responses specifically designed to provoke flame posting. You still haven't answered my question, and I'm not going to bother responding until you do - just why is it that are you in this thread?

Discrimination against fields of endeavor (like commercial use) in the license means it's not Open Source software anymore.

> Selling open source software itself is rather pointless

It's not, really. I've made money selling a few of my own OSS products over the years. There's no need to gate the code to do this.

In theory, you're absolutely right. In practice, that doesn't work in any sustainable way. Selling services (whether in the form of support/consulting/dev hours or hosting) can work, but selling the OSS software itself... not so much.

This is true, but I was really talking about contributing to other people's projects, not my own.

> I've never understood software engineers and organisations who contribute their code to the open source and free software worlds and then think they're owed compensation for it.

It's obvious isn't it? The logic goes "I need to eat" + "I develop open source software" => "I need to be paid for developing open source software".

The only problem with it is the world then live in doesn't support their implied version of the "=>" operator. People fall into this trap all the time. "Men like porn" + "Men like sex" => "Porn turns men into sex addicts". "Criminals commit crime" + "Jailing criminals stops them committing crime" => "We will be better off it we spend a lot of money on keeping criminals in jail".

Taking the time to understand the underlying mechanism that drives open source takes effort. Yes, it started when people scratched itches when they had nothing better to and gave away the result for free. If you have a certain mind set giving it away for free is the natural thing to do. A true idealist might try dedicating their life to it, but find it is very difficult as they have to eat. Most of us acknowledge that reality and move on.

After moving on some of us found to our delight that it made business sense in the places we worked in to give away some our work for free. This wasn't because we convinced business to share our ideals at their expense. It happened because we brought open source into the business. The business then discovered it was pure (if perhaps enlightened) pragmatism to let us give away some of our work, because the business got far more back from the ecosystem than they contributed; mostly because contributing the work they were going to pay us to do anyway costs almost nothing and as a lot of other businesses are doing the same thing, it amplified that feed back effect. Combine that with copyleft licences like the GPL providing a way to keep parasites under control so we could avoid the tragedy of the commons, and business found they too can be part of a wonderful virtuous cycle.

This is the mechanism that drives most of open source development today. Since open source has eaten the world I'd say it's been very successful. But nonetheless not all of us get to participate. If you didn't find such a place to work then most of your open source efforts mostly died because worshipping ideals doesn't put food on the plate.

Such is life. Accept it and move on.

But if you are both stubborn and idealistic it can take a while to realise you don't have a lot of choice in this. Asking people to pay for your open source software is a stop along the path to discovering your simplistic "=>" operator doesn't and will never exist in the real world, no matter how much you want it to.