Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway_au_1 | Hacker News Reader

Yes - I'd say it's nearly the definition of entitlement. I can totally understand why it would be frustrating, but to assume the people producing this resource are immune from paying the rent and would be forever is ignorant. People should consider that they ever got it for free as a bonus. If migrating away from FOSS is too upsetting , frustrating or painful - don't build on tools with questionable sustainability models from the start, or DIY.

It's also worth pointing out that it's only locked away for entities generating >= 1M/y USD revenue. I can't exactly feel sorry for them.

View on HN

I was just adding some perspective that it's okay to be upset or frustrated without being entitled or ignoring the economic needs of the maintainers.

And yes, the particulars of this license seem more than reasonable from the standpoint of the threshold of needing to pay.

I should maybe point out that at one point, ImageSharp wanted Microsoft to stop their (still open source) graphics development and help contribute to ImageSharp.

https://github.com/dotnet/Microsoft.Maui.Graphics/issues/47

>I was just adding some perspective that it's okay to be upset or frustrated without being entitled or ignoring the economic needs of the maintainers.

I think being upset or frustrated that one has lost access to something useful that one also invested very little in is a fair/natural reaction (the free lunch is over), but I also think it would be unfair to direct that frustration at the people who were providing that resource to begin with. It also seems unfair when the resource, as it stands right now, continues to be available in its current state; one only loses out on additional, future value, which I would argue one has no real claim to anyway (in general).

Your comment didn't say that it is fair [to direct..] (so take this comment as a further qualification if anything), but it seems to be one of the prevailing attitudes about this kind of thing, and where (at least) I see the entitlement coming through.

It disregards everyone who helped ImageSharp get to where it is today. Are the other code / issue contributors and evangelists getting paid for their efforts?

The comment from Akka's relicense [1] applies just as well here:

"""

1) Project is open source

2) People use the project because it is open source

3) People contribute bug reports and fixes, creating value and improving the open source project because it is open source

4) People spread the word about the project, free marketing because it is open source

5) Maintainers decide to relicense, privatizing the value created by the community.

The "success" was a social phenomenon, not merely the efforts of the maintainers.

Relicensing is a betrayal of the community that was built around the software.

"""

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32755405

> Are the other code / issue contributors and evangelists getting paid for their efforts?

Nobody is getting paid for the pre-license-change version. Which remains open-source under the existing license forever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com