onlinepersona@programming.dev
on 17 Oct 2024 08:06
collapse
This is a great initiative and I wish there were more orgs that did this. However, I’m now convinced that we need opensource licenses which stipulate remuneration when used for financial gain.
haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com
on 17 Oct 2024 08:58
nextcollapse
Hi there! I see you‘re spitting thruth again.
I have since gone with the programme for a couple months and developed some foss software, helped make foss software and tested some foss software.
The general impression I got from it was: most of it is used without any reciprocity of any kind. The bigger projects get some donations and some also get code.
But stomping new projects out of the ground is pretty much impossible that way because you will have to invest 100s of hours to test and program. Nothing you can do in a reasonable timeframe while having a day job and a life.
So yes, I think especially for projects south of a certain size, companies should pay. Dual licensing was mentioned once. Something like agpl + commercial license if someone wants to use it closed source. I dont think it covers general profit seeking intent though.
threaded - newest
Project translators:
<img alt="" src="https://www.vice.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/06/1624536388711-what-its-like-to-be-the-actual-face-of-disappointment.jpeg">
Explanation
The preview pic says “No-strings funding […]”, which would exclude translator work if taken literally excluding the content of
stringdata structures<img alt="" src="https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/6477d052-ef62-4df3-8fa4-4aeb917e774a.png">
This is a great initiative and I wish there were more orgs that did this. However, I’m now convinced that we need opensource licenses which stipulate remuneration when used for financial gain.
Anti Commercial-AI license
Hi there! I see you‘re spitting thruth again.
I have since gone with the programme for a couple months and developed some foss software, helped make foss software and tested some foss software.
The general impression I got from it was: most of it is used without any reciprocity of any kind. The bigger projects get some donations and some also get code.
But stomping new projects out of the ground is pretty much impossible that way because you will have to invest 100s of hours to test and program. Nothing you can do in a reasonable timeframe while having a day job and a life.
So yes, I think especially for projects south of a certain size, companies should pay. Dual licensing was mentioned once. Something like agpl + commercial license if someone wants to use it closed source. I dont think it covers general profit seeking intent though.
Have a good one.
Affero and GPL are basically “give us the source or give us the money” for web and applications respectively.