147
SF ads call out tech firms for not paying for open source
(www.theregister.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
147 points (98.7% liked)
Opensource
1334 readers
33 users here now
A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!
⠀
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Maybe the software license should have been one that only allows non commercial use or the open sourcing of all derivative code.
This is hard though. You present commercial license, and you'll cut out a good 80-90% of the potential users, which means the OSS project is way more likely to die.
I think CTOs should be okay with allowing their employees to contribute to projects they use. In my first hand experience, they're more likely to say "no we shouldn't". It's unfair really.
This is the same argument as "capital flight". It's a bad one as most opensource isn't used commercially. There are thousands of projects maybe millions of projects out there not found anywhere in commercial projects. Most aren't written to end up being used commercially either, but if they ever are, they should get paid.
Arguing against adding a line to get paid in case it's used commercially, is as bad an argument as taxing the rich "because one day I might be rich".
Anti Commercial-AI license