|
Sorry, not trying to end it early, it's just I ran out of anywhere to go in this convo. 
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
|
|
|
|
|
I guess if you are getting f****d in the a** and there is nothing you can do about it, then it is best not to think about it? Is that your position?
|
|
|
|
|
I don't agree with that.
For starters google has not taken my code and used it, so the hypothetical I was responding to was just that.
And if I didn't enjoy what I was doing, I wouldn't do it.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Would you be okay with that, if you found out 20 years from now?
What if instead they hired you as a 'guru' to support all of their product lines because you were the author. And paid you significantly more than you were making as a developer.
Some real open source examples that you might want to consider
- C# Moq. They made a badly planned effort to monetize their product recently.
- MySQL. Now owned by Oracle who is sort of attempting to monetize. So much so that there is now a branch taken from the original named MariaDB.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: What if instead they hired you as a 'guru' to support all of their product lines because you were the author. And paid you significantly more than you were making as a developer.
That is a very good point and is one of the dreams of OSS devs, but I'm just not sure how much it really happens.
I think that it doesn't happen as often as we hope because I think BigCorps are often using things without wanting anyone to really know -- as a way of limiting litigation.
I also think that statistically it doesn't happen much because there are vast numbers of OSS components but rarely do I hear of this.
But, hopefully I'm wrong and it does happen more often than I think.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: I think that it doesn't happen as often as we hope because I think BigCorps are often using things without wanting anyone to really know
Hardly.
There are no human organizations that are omniscient. Organizations, even more so that people, blunder their way through their history based on nothing more than irrational biases that one or groups within have. Why irrational? Because they almost never use any real data for the decisions. Even those that present data often do so with incomplete sets and using cherry picking to support their forgone conclusions.
The most prevalent reason for not hiring a specific OSS developer is because the company does not actually need that expertise. Where need is still based on irrational biases.
Note that I am not using those terms to denigrate but merely to describe the actual processes.
As an actual example of this I have never worked with even a single developer who actually researches licenses before using third party code. I have seen developers claim that because it was found on the internet it is free to use without regard. I have seen developers that do not even know that licenses exist. I have seen developers that cannot read a license and understand what it means. However I have seen some managers that were at least aware of why that could be a problem. But I have also seen 'C' level people who were completely unaware of the problem.
I certainly don't expect any other group within an organization to be smarter than developers.
|
|
|
|
|
Stockfish chess: Those guys (three not one) were making zero for ages. But I feel they are doing pretty well now. Open source free for private use. But it is sooo good that many chess sites have integrated it. And commercial use you pay dollars. Why they started, and kept going, and going ? certainly not cash.
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
modified 21-Aug-23 17:11pm.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded?
Like with any pyramid scheme, the first person makes a fortune. Everyone else gets screwed. That's why they keep on coming back.
Keep in mind, I say this as a dude who loves OSS. Only thing is, I don't see any other professional on the planet giving away their time and work for free. In my not so humble opinion, OSS is great for a few main things...
- You hate writing documentation. Seriously, it's free so screw your users.
- It's very niche and requires public trust.
- You're just a solo dev and want to use the power of the Internet to find peeps to help.
- You're doing it for fun and don't give two flips about what happens to the code.
- You don't care about supporting your code and do not warrant it.
OSS will always take a commercial application to realize any financial benefit. Which while great, is also part of the movement towards making code writing less and less valuable. Especially as AI gets better. That means the programmers of the future will have to be more people oriented and less code monkeys... because open source or not... people won't be writing code in the future no more than people not riding horses across country.
Jeremy Falcon
modified 21-Aug-23 19:00pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you 100%. Your assessment of the situation is right on point.
I especially like when you said,
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I don't see any other professional on the planet giving away their time and work for free.
Also, you're bullets for times when you would open source code are spot on.
Thanks so much for joining the discussion. I really enjoyed reading your points and they encouraged me to see that at least someone else sees it as it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Any time man. It was a good topic.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
To leave a legacy.
Other than posting articles here, I don't do open source software.
|
|
|
|
|
I have been in the same spot long enough to retire multiple libraries. 10 years seems like a typical life span for any technological component.
Business components last longer.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them.
Any volunteer work robs someone from a paid job.
For software, I am guilty, I like to pay back the community that educated me. There was no school when I was young.
In other fields, yes, there's a growing trend for volunteers. They deserve it. If people are willing and it contributes then no harm done, right?
--edit
And because I could. The name of the company is Exceptional Magic, and one article and a quick download changed it.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Linus & Linux?
Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded?
Linus Torvalds did not do okay! He created Linux and Git. IBM bought Red Hat for 34 billion in 2019 but he did not get a single cent though IBM and Red Hat are long time sponsors of Linux Foundation. Microsoft acquired GitHub for $7.5 billion in 2018 and he did not get any money while people got rich from his creations. Do you think this is fair?
Regarding OSS, open source means free as in free speech, not free beer, meaning one can make money from selling OSS. But most people misunderstand the meaning of free to mean free beer. Most companies use OSS because they do not cost anything. On the one hand, we have very expensive Windows license, while on the other, we have free Linux OSes. Why can't we have some OS (that is priced moderately) in between?
modified 22-Aug-23 3:09am.
|
|
|
|
|
All of your points are fantastic. I agree 100%.
Shao Voon Wong wrote: Why can't we have some OS (that is priced moderately) in between?
Yes, that would make the most sense of all. That way developers who work on the projects could get paid while still making the OS affordable to all.
Thanks for the great post! 
|
|
|
|
|
Shao Voon Wong wrote: Linus Torvalds did not do okay! He created Linux and Git. IBM bought Red Hat for 34 billion in 2019 but he did not get a single cent though IBM and Red Hat are long time sponsors of Linux Foundation. Microsoft acquired GitHub for $7.5 billion in 2018 and he did not get any money while people got rich from his creations. Do you think this is fair?
Do I? Hmmm...more importantly does he?
Well yes he does think it is fair.
Linus Torvalds on Why Open Source Solves the Biggest Problems - The New Stack[^]
"does he have any regrets about choosing the GPLv2 license? — Torvalds answers “Absolutely not… I’m 100% convinced that the license has been a big part of the success of Linux (and Git, for that matter)"
Shao Voon Wong wrote: Why can't we have some OS (that is priced moderately) in between?
Because...
You expect it run on your hardware. Even though there are a million different variations in hardware.
And you expect that you can make money by delivering something that runs on one of those million different hardware set ups.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Has any solo developer released Open Source Software (OSS) and then been better off for it?
Where 'better' is defined how?
I suspect Larry Wall enjoys being the creator of Perl. And some other tools.
raddevus wrote: People don't donate actual $$.
Oh, you mean money.
If you want money for something then you should start with a company.
Not sure where ActiveState and Larry Wall are now but at least at one time several people that were actively involved with Perl worked for that company.
raddevus wrote: When you release your software as OSS you can't actually profit from others using it.
You can only profit by charging for documentation or support or other on-the-side things.
Except
1. Some people are hired by companies because those companies want the expert in that product working for them. (ActiveState is an example.)
2. Some people are paid significant sums to speak at various functions (public and private) because they are the author of some highly used software.
raddevus wrote: I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them
I am rather certain that developers that contribute to Open Source do it for some of the following reasons.
- They like working on code.
- They like becoming known.
- They think they have a better solution.
- They do not want the commitment of a full time job/company.
- Companies fail. Often with a cost (money) to the original person. The cost for open source is very low and it only fails if the original person gives up on it.
- They have ideological viewpoints that support it.
- Looks good on the resume.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you make a lot of great points in your post.
I definitely feel that this is one of the things that gets me:
jschell wrote: They do not want the commitment of a full time job/company.
That's why I was (probably wrongly) hoping that
1. I could release as Open Source
2. Lots of people could use it and many of them (also sole devs & smaller companies) could use it for free or very cheap ($12 per year)
2. Add licensing that says, "Hey, if this thing takes off and BigCorp starts using it, then you will pay me well for all my hard work."
That's the Real Dream. 
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: That's why I was (probably wrongly) hoping that
1. I could release as Open Source
2. Lots of people could use it and many of them (also sole devs & smaller companies) could use it for free or very cheap ($12 per year)
2. Add licensing that says, "Hey, if this thing takes off and BigCorp starts using it, then you will pay me well for all my hard work."
github -free level
papertrail - low cost initial level
mixpanel - free level
AWS S3 - low cost initial level. Many (all?) AWS services have something like this.
Textpad - low unlimited single use license.
google maps - limited monthly limit for no charge. (I suspect you need to insure the limit yourself.)
I am certain there are many others.
|
|
|
|
|
Despite another's claim that no one else gives away services for free there are of course a number of problems with that assertion.
Open Source Software is just time. I doubt any developer goes out to buy a new computer just so they can create a open source project. The vast majority by far already have everything they need. So there is no cost. Some might choose to spend extra (a domain name) but that is a choice.
Almost everything else requires spending money.
Consider a car mechanic. They might work for free on the local church van or youth center. But car parts are something they need to actually buy. They need to do this for every fix.
What about Habitat for Humanity?
During Covid there was a loose organization set up of individuals who built desks for kids that had none.
What about trades (plumbing, electrician, etc) workers who donate time and money (equipment/supplies) to help out neighbors and even strangers who are having problems. Having done some work recently I can state that having just the equipment for this sort of thing is a substantial cost for even small projects. And those people probably also have a computer.
|
|
|
|
|
I actually agree with your examples...except...
Those things don't scale like Software.
A plumber can never fix 100 million pipes himself.
A mechanic can never fix 100 million cars himself.
The point is that if you create a software solution it may be used by 100 million people.
Ah, and the mechanic may create an add-on that he sells that allows consumers to up their gas mileage.
Then, 100 million people could buy it. He may even tell people how it works -- and be protected by patent protection.
However, if I tell you how the software works and then you take the source and build it and use it for 100 million users there is no patent protection (and I'm glad you can't patent software).
So, again, I'm just talking about protecting OSS creators so that if their package or solution does get used by 100s of millions of people by BigCorp and BigCorp didn't have to pay for any dev then somehow the original OSS dev should get her "fair share".
|
|
|
|
|
You can copyright source and you can patent algorithms/processes.
In the US, they allow you to make ridiculous software patents, never use them, and then sue people for infringement.
Patent trolls!
I remember researching an algorithm I wrote to ensure that there were no patent infringements.
We did not patent ourself, but keep it as a trade secret.
|
|
|
|
|
englebart said: In the US, they allow you to make ridiculous software patents, never use them, and then sue people for infringement.
It’s a terrible thing. To me, that part is worse than the worst parts of the open source challenges. Can’t stand the trolls. It’s a crazy system bec it rewards people who can think of ideas but who cannot actually carry them out. They cannot even produce the thing but are somehow entitled to the rewards. So terrible!!
The patent system should take into account if the patent holder has never produced the thing they’ve patented.
Trolls!!!
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Those things don't scale like Software.
Exactly - because of the cost. And because it cannot be copied.
Certainly those that were building desks wanted to do exactly that.
raddevus wrote: So, again, I'm just talking about protecting OSS creators so that if their package or solution does get used by 100s of millions of people by BigCorp and BigCorp didn't have to pay for any dev then somehow the original OSS dev should get her "fair share".
And as I mentioned several times - then start a company. That is how people do that that want to get paid.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
