From: Alejandro Colomar <alx-AT-kernel.org>
Hi all,
As you know, I’ve been maintaining the Linux man-pages project for the last 4 years as a voluntary. I’ve been doing it in my free time, and no company has sponsored that work at all. At the moment, I cannot sustain this work economically any more, and will temporarily and indefinitely stop working on this project. If any company has interests in the future of the project, I’d welcome an offer to sponsor my work here; if so, please let me know.
Have a lovely day! Alex
This sounds like the sort of infrastructure project the Linux Foundation should be supporting.
In my opinion it’s criminal just how often this happens. Big business making obscene profit off the back of volunteer work like yours and many others across the OSS community.
Germany has a Sovereign Tech Fund for exactly this, and while it’s not perfect, it’s one of the better uses of my tax euros.
That’s why the current state of open source licenses doesn’t work. Commercial use should be forbidden for free users. You could dual license the work, with a single, main license applying to everyone, and a second addendum license that just contains the clause for that specific use, be it personal or corporate. Corporate use of any kind requires supporting the project financially.
I’m a single dude who sells custom electronics with open source software on them. I sell maybe two PCBs a month. It just about covers my hobby, I’m not even living off of it. I can’t afford commercial licenses. There has to be tiers.
In return, I’ve made every schematic, gerber file, and bill of material to my stuff freely available.
One way to allow for this would be a license that says if you sell them through an LLC or corporate entity of some kind, that should require financial support but if it’s you selling them in your own name or as a single owner business, with your reputation and liability on the line, then you should not be required to provide support. The other thought to include in a license is actual money earned from sales. Once a company earns, for example let’s say $1,000 or 1,000€ a month in profits, that’s when the financial support license kicks in and requires payments to the open source authors. Of course, that would require high earners to report their earnings accurately which is a different can of worms.
I agree, but this is mostly an issue with permissive licenses like MIT. GPL and its variants have enough teeth in them to deal with shit like this. I’m scared of the rising popularity of these permissive licenses. A lot of indie devs have somehow been convinced by corpos that they should avoid the GPL and go with MIT and alike
I might be misunderstanding the licenses so correct me if wrong.
Can companies use GPL code internally without release as long as the thing written with it doesn’t get directly released to the public?
… or does GPL pollute everything even if used internally for commercial purposes?
Oh I definitely agree with you there. I just think GPL is close but not close enough.
It’s criminal to let someone do the thing he actively volunteers to do? It’s criminal to use software that someone intentionally puts out into the world as free?
If you’re willing yo do something for free, people are going to let you 🤷♂️
It’s criminal the propaganda that lead people like this developer to believe they should do the work for free, and not worry, because the corporate world always gives back :)
That “propaganda” is the very idea behind free software. Work on what interests you and is of use to you, and share it with others so they can do with it whatever they want, as long as it stays free software.
The idea that all that work must be paid for by whoever uses it is exactly the opposite of what free software is about.
Definitely agree, maybe it’s time to share Paul Ramsey’s talk on the subject again
Bruce Perens is currently working on a new licensing model called Post Open requiring that business with sufficient revenue to pay up.
Why only “with sufficient revenue”? All commercial use should pay. Adding “with sufficient revenue” only makes it more difficult to enforce and introduces loopholes.
Just, um, don’t invite that guy who helped out with the xz tools…
Everything needs to be slapped with the AGPL. Fuck corporate America
I thought AGPL was the more restrictive version of GPL? Which license should we use so that corporates need to pay?
AGPL is the most restrictive OSI approved license (of the commonly used ones), but it is still a free (libre) open source license. My understanding is just that the AGPL believes in the end-users rights to access to the open source needs to be maintained and therefore places some burden to make the source available if it it’s being run on a server.
In general, companies run away from anything AGPL, however, some companies will get creative with it and make their source available but in a way that is useless without the backend. And even if they don’t maliciously comply with the license, they can still charge for their services.
As far as documentation goes, you could license documentation under AGPL, and people could still charge for it. It would just need to be kept available for end-users which i don’t think is really a barrier to use for documentation.
It is my understanding that the only difference applies to hosted software. For example, Lemmy is AGPL. If it were GPL, then a company could take the source code, modify it and host their own version without open sourcing their modifications. AGPL extends to freedoms of GPL to users of hosted software as well.
A real example of this would be truth social which is modified Mastodon and as AGPL those modifications are required to be open source as well.
Unfortunately it is still not enough. There have been many instances of people using these licenses and still corporations using their software without giving back, and developers being upset about it.
And unfortunately there are no popular licenses that limit that. I’ve seen a few here and there, but doesn’t seem to be a standard.
