What does he expect to happen? I really don't get it. If you like to work on opensource. Sure, do your thing. But if the benefit in CV building and personal satisfaction are not enough, why don't you stop doing it?
To get paid for doing open source.
This is a plea for increased funding.
You can think of it as a job application being broadcast.
His software is clearly valued, but companies take 3rd-party dependencies for granted because they're just there and can be used for free. There are things a company can do to replenish the ecosystem: Give time or money to maintain projects they depend on.
> if the benefit in CV building and personal satisfaction are not enough, why don't you stop doing it?
I'm afraid you don't understand the basic premise:
He is not (primarily) doing open source to promote his CV.
He is (presumably) doing open source for ideology and lifestyle: because it provides a good work environment where you work on exactly what you want, provides value that scales beyond what a single company can create (but is otherwise somewhat harder to measure), and provides value to the global, general public, which is not something people with day jobs can claim as easily.
Out of curiosity. You know, apples and oranges.
That alone does not entitle anyone to payment. All you're entitled to - as per license - is to have the license reproduced in full on some "About > Licenses" page.
Anything else is underpants-gnome level of magical thinking:
1. Author FL/OSS package
2. Package get wildly popular
3. ???
4. Profits
If an artist said “I’m going to quit art if the world doesn’t pay me”, surely most people would just say, “good luck with that.”
If someone’s art piece contained a bug that broke a company’s industrial build pipeline, and all funding for improving the art piece was gone the next 15 months, I’m sure that company would consider donating.
There isn’t a principal difference between art and software here. It is the nature of companies that rely on open source that is not well understood here, causing criticism and questions.
This is a friendly reminder that anyone interested in a 3.1 release in the foreseeable future should cough up. :-)
I really don’t see the complaining.
working on open source software is and can be a "real" job. the only difference to closed source software is that the source code is open - nothing else (simplified).
if you want your hair cut, pay the hairdresser. if you're interested in the continued development of the project, pay the author. it's as simple as that.
in this case there's not enough funding so the project is discontinued. doesn't get more professional and non-hobbyist than that.
Right now, those corporations just steal the code and sponsor the OSI's gatekeeping.
That is no small difference. In particular the business is completely different and if you want to make a living out of it, you should plan your job accordingly: find an employer that pays you to write the software, make a business around support for the software, open a twitch/YouTube channel and monetize it, etc., but asking people (or worse corporations) that have the right to use something for free to pay for it doesn't look to me like the best course of action.
> if you want your hair cut, pay the hairdresser. if you're interested in the continued development of the project, pay the author. it's as simple as that.
If you offer to cut the hair for free, you shouldn't complain that rich people don't pay for your services, and the "but everybody comes to me" is not a good enough reason, especially when being free is one of the motivations.
You also should not complain when the hairdresser stops offering free haircuts.
What I am complaining about is the assumption that people using open source software have to contribute to the authors, expecially if they have plenty of money. Open source is not about that. If that is the expectation, a different type of license is probably better suited.
So it's less of a complaint and more of well meaning advise that he too should work for pay.
Their "hobby" saves huge corporations large amounts of money. I don't understand how it's not obvious that they should chip in comparatively small amounts of money to make sure that the project stays updated and secure.
Why bother funding open source at all, it's not like it's the foundation of the entire worlds infrastructure or anything.
These projects deserve funding, if at least from giants like facebook & co.
Absolutely.
Looking at:
https://github.com/libjpeg-turbo/libjpeg-turbo/releases/tag/...
one wonders what possible harm could come from leaving image decompression buffer faults from maliciously crafted jpegs in popular browsers and software unattended.
This is yet another reason a switch to a memory-safe language like unsafe-free Rust is highly imperative.
Guaranteeing memory safety isn't just an overhyped benefit meaningful only to Rust fanboys. It is also one important reason why much code is written in Java, Python, or JavaScript. It is a valuable property for any language to have.
The 100% certainty you use to claim it's absolutely memory safe is the essence of the problem with the rust fanboys.
There is an entire class of bugs common to C and C++ that absolutely never happen in JVM languages, CLR languages, Rust, etc. This particular class of bugs of bugs never happen by design, because the language design simply does not permit them to occur ever.¹
¹ I am obviously of course excluding bugs/exploits/unintentional-loopholes here that are in the JVM or CLR, or in the Rust compiler itself, that permit a program to "break out of its box", so to speak.
Does that mean Swift is unsafe? No.
All this does is create the potential for a memory leak. Which is nowhere close to being in the same category as a buffer overflow exploit.
Also, I suppose one could write a garbage-collected pointer library for Rust, which adds cycle detection (and auto-deletion) on top of ARC.
There's a reason https://github.com/libjpeg-turbo/libjpeg-turbo/tree/main/sim... is filled with assembly files with conditional loading.
With all the hyper-optimized assembly in there, it's probably still more efficient even with the container penalty (which, tbh, is close to zero on Linux these days).
WUFFS is a special purpose language for Wrangling Untrusted File Formats Safely:
WUFFS pays a high price (loss of generality) for a valuable reward (compile time assurance of memory safety, very high performance) and it makes no sense for people to hand roll this sort of software in C when they should use WUFFS.
Err, this is him announcing that he's stopping doing it.
Just because "it helps the CV" doesn't mean that's an end goal in itself in the long run, and once a library is popular the implications (security issues!) of non-maintenance is far higher even if it started out as a "fun" project.
This xkcd illustrates it perfectly, https://xkcd.com/2347/