There has been a lot of talk about companies and individuals adopting licenses that aren’t OSI opensource to protect themselves from mega-corp leechers. Developers have also been condemned who put donation notices in the command-line or during package installation. Projects with opensource cores and paid extensions have also been targets of vitriol.
So, let’s say we wanted to make it possible for the majority of developers to work on software that strictly follows the definition of opensource, which models would be acceptable to make enough money to work on those projects full-time?
The later is true for all software, but a lot of the "open source is unsustained"talks comes from the trillions of dollars and critical infrastructure built on it, but with little to no funding going back to actually paying for development or any contract in place saying that bugs will be fixed at all.
I think the “abuse” part is less of an issue outside if this. Like I don’t mind that business benifit more than they put into public infrastructure, in fact I hope they do, but its a problem in which people that benifit the most aren’t paying their proportional amount of the bill or worse no one is and we poise ourselves to lose it.
Exactly. A lot of this public infra is written in OSI respecting opensource, yet it is being taken advantage of with little to no kickback. Most people writing opensource cannot live on it and are never compensated for their work. Yet, when the proposition is made to introduce the equivalent of a tax within/for opensource projects, there’s an outcry about it not respecting the OSI definition of opensource.
So, my question is, what’s the realistic alternative? Because right now OSIsts are defending the equivalent of roads being built by people in their offtime and are vehemently against it being written that they should get compensated if the road is used for commercial purposes.
Anti Commercial-AI license