My sense is that it’s time to evolve licensing such that wealthy major consumers of packages that have become somewhat essential are naturally paying a licence fee.
The problem is not in what the code does it’s a problem with the agreement for use.
The problem is not in what the code does it’s a problem with the agreement for use.
What if this was addressed at the “platform” level, I’m thinking the package manager here, NPM.
If npm had paid plans that would essentially mop up larger corporations they could then auto-distribute funds Spotify style based on “number of listens”.
I’d personally want to see this work mainly as enterprise plans.
This seems like a pretty decent idea…
For programmers, you'd be correct. That only really be a replacement for patreons, tips, and donations, which would typically be a miniscule amount. It just redistribute it instead. (Your $x subscription just automatically gets allotted instead of manually allotted).
Yes, it's called paid software, but don't worry, it's going to be trendy again soon.
The days of free software contribution are almost over.
Devs want to be paid for their work. too many corporations made billions from open source projects while maintainers live in quasi poverty.
What is needed is a proper market place for paid open source software. Github isn't one.
CVE are the proper marketing. The perspective of having a package with a vulnerability and no-one to provide a fix is frightening to any software maintainer.
I think I could be extorted dozens of thousands for a single upgrade. Heck, when the electrician auditor says our office is not certified for 2022, I pay $700 for a professional to fix it. Software will be the same very soon.
Expecting compensation for a gift is the error.
If you intend to keep it as the original gift, it will be called abandoned.
The software maintenance is also given out as a gift. That's a choice.
So he's perfectly entitled to choose not to do that any more, no?
This model where someone develops something for free and then those that benefit the most don't contribute back isn't sustainable. I don't know if the packages owner was conscious about it but this was a political act and hopefully the impact will be positive.
From where we are we have two options: (1) companies find a way to make open source financially rewarding; (2) companies use their own crap instead.
It's a choice to distribute software for "free" as in "free beer".
Is there a license that is like MIT but with special clauses for people making big bucket?
I don't think I can just put an extra clause on it that says something on the line of "if you are using this to earn more than X big macs by year then you have to pay me or be subject to a fine".
This radically changes things as it may void the liability clause and also make code less fungible. And there's the issue of fairness to contributors.
- Devs do open source and get rewarded
- Devs get hired to make crappy alternative software for companies