undefined | Better HN

TAForObvReasons3y ago· 2 in thread

The example is flawed. What really happens in open source is that the users contribute bug reports and fixes, then the project maintainers privatize the use after extracting value. Should the users who contributed code and issues be paid as well?

For better or for worse, the success of many large open source projects is driven by a community of evangelists that just wouldn't exist if the project weren't open source in the first place.

colordrops3y ago

Could update the example by saying that the villagers have been contributing to bridge maintenance before it went private.

OrvalWintermute3y ago

O&M of a thing, often outweighs the initial cost of bootstrapping it in the first place.

The longer it runs, the more this is true.

bachmeier3y ago· 1 in thread

So you mean everyone that contributed when the project was FOSS should be paid for their labor when this ceases to be FOSS?

braingenious3y ago

I really don’t understand how licensing works, but doesn’t the Apache 2.0 license essentially mean “anybody can do anything they want with this code”?

If that is the case, wouldn’t that right also apply to the primary maintainer/owner of the copyright or is it just the users that have that privilege?

If I were concerned about somebody eventually monetizing a product that I contributed to, I wouldn’t contribute to anything.

colordrops3y ago

I don't understand how your question leads from my comment. I didn't say anything about there being something wrong with being paid for labor.

0 comments

0 comments