Hey! I wrote the article. Having an OSS project take off changed my life. YMMV
And that wouldn’t bother so many as much if it weren’t for the fact that large corporations often do not give back. It’s become so much of an issue that OSS maintainers have switched licenses, some have shifted closed-source, and others have simply abandoned their projects.
Just last week I began rethinking usage of MIT/Apache licenses for future work. For the longest time I was hesitant about GPLv3 and almost scared to use in my personal projects, but it turns out my hesitations were fueled by...large corporations.
That means I will make things, talk about them, and accrue social and/or actual capital for me and my family. I can't stop any megacorp from training on my code, and it's futile to try. I CAN build cool things, talk about them, and get cool jobs or friends or a following or whatever. I understand not everyone is comfortable with this tradeoff.
I do not like this take and I do hope you reconsider repeating such. This very much reads as accepting a lack of any claim to reasonable privacy and ownership, borderline on accepting what I would consider theft.
I have a lot that I'd love to share (and let's... charitably... assume it's worthwhile stuff) but would be afraid to start just because of this stumbling block.
It's a pretty repeatable pipeline. And having proof that you can DO something makes you stand out. Maybe moreso than ever!
I would say that now, more than ever, this means you should be collecting and sharing what you create.
Not on large social media platforms either, on websites that you own and (ideally) host yourself.
Start a blog, host your own instance of Gitea, build a platform for your videos. Spread what you create and activity participate in the community but maintain ownership and an audit trail over what you've created.
People ripping off others works has always been a thing, of course it's much easier and pervasive now. It's still (IMO) beneficial to say "Look! I did this thing first!", with the added benefit of accruing the kind of "social capital" Aaron talked about.
If anything, the fact that it worked for me, yet I found it necessary to add the full context, probably strengthens the statement even more.
But anyway. Standard damage control statement that latches onto nothing because there is nothing to latch on to as I made sure to structure the comment that way.
I hate corporate so much man. Just because you can predict what happens doesn't mean that the happening would be any less frustrating.
___
I understand that your role requires you to do this. That is clear to anyone moving through these systems.
What I do not understand though is why you even tried to deflect this with such a low-quality "oh it worked for me it might not have worked for you. YMMV" thing, when you could've also just said nothing at all, not forcing my hand and making me call you out on that.
That is, above all else, strategically unwise.
Fortunately, however, this all doesn't matter. It's not like anyone cares about anything on this platform anyway. So even a strategically unwise move might as well not exist at all.
Yeah, sorry about that. I agree it indeed worked out for you and that is great.
The point that I'm getting at is that it is necessary for the system to occasionally produce a winner, because otherwise, people would stop trying.
Think for example about a casino with zero wins. No one would come to play. If they however occasionally select a winner, that winner will then be the best marketing they can get, encouraging all his friends to also start gambling.
Please do not mistake this analogy as me questioning your merits. I am confident in your abilities at your craft.
What I am however saying is that the system does not select its winners based on that merit. Instead, the criteria for selection are usually based on what benefits the system most. This, in some situations, might line up with general merits to some degree, but it also might not, and that is one of the core deceptions, the corporate world runs on.
I do believe you that the idea of the article was to encourage people so that they can also have these great wins and experiences you had. But, as said, that is just one side of the coin, and it would be unethical to not mention all the outcomes in which a person does not win.
Every phrase in the article was carefully selected to make it clear that we're trying to increase the odds. Nothing is sure. But if you play the game right, the odds of winning go up