From: Alejandro Colomar <alx-AT-kernel.org>
Hi all,
As you know, I’ve been maintaining the Linux man-pages project for the last 4 years as a voluntary. I’ve been doing it in my free time, and no company has sponsored that work at all. At the moment, I cannot sustain this work economically any more, and will temporarily and indefinitely stop working on this project. If any company has interests in the future of the project, I’d welcome an offer to sponsor my work here; if so, please let me know.
Have a lovely day! Alex
This sounds like the sort of infrastructure project the Linux Foundation should be supporting.
They only invest in the fancy marketable new age shit, and well, corporate rejects (Tizen, MeeGo, etc)
In my opinion it’s criminal just how often this happens. Big business making obscene profit off the back of volunteer work like yours and many others across the OSS community.
Germany has a Sovereign Tech Fund for exactly this, and while it’s not perfect, it’s one of the better uses of my tax euros.
Didn’t they suspend, or greatly hinder, that recently?
There was an EU-wide one that gota lot of its funding redirected to AI stuff recently that you might be thinking of.
That’s why the current state of open source licenses doesn’t work. Commercial use should be forbidden for free users. You could dual license the work, with a single, main license applying to everyone, and a second addendum license that just contains the clause for that specific use, be it personal or corporate. Corporate use of any kind requires supporting the project financially.
I’m a single dude who sells custom electronics with open source software on them. I sell maybe two PCBs a month. It just about covers my hobby, I’m not even living off of it. I can’t afford commercial licenses. There has to be tiers.
In return, I’ve made every schematic, gerber file, and bill of material to my stuff freely available.
One way to allow for this would be a license that says if you sell them through an LLC or corporate entity of some kind, that should require financial support but if it’s you selling them in your own name or as a single owner business, with your reputation and liability on the line, then you should not be required to provide support. The other thought to include in a license is actual money earned from sales. Once a company earns, for example let’s say $1,000 or 1,000€ a month in profits, that’s when the financial support license kicks in and requires payments to the open source authors. Of course, that would require high earners to report their earnings accurately which is a different can of worms.
I would draw the line at shareholders.
You may use my software free of charge if you are a student, hobbyist, hobbyist with income, side hustler, sole proprietorship, LLC, S-Corp, non-profit, partnership, or other owner-operator type business.
Corporations with investors or shareholders will pay recurring licensing fees. Your shareholders may not profit from my work unless I profit from it more than they do. If you can afford a three inch thick mahogany conference table you can afford to pay for your software.
I hope we see an evolution of licensing. Giant companies shouldn’t get a free pass if they’re just going to treat the original devs like a commodity to be used up.
I agree, but this is mostly an issue with permissive licenses like MIT. GPL and its variants have enough teeth in them to deal with shit like this. I’m scared of the rising popularity of these permissive licenses. A lot of indie devs have somehow been convinced by corpos that they should avoid the GPL and go with MIT and alike
I might be misunderstanding the licenses so correct me if wrong.
Can companies use GPL code internally without release as long as the thing written with it doesn’t get directly released to the public?
… or does GPL pollute everything even if used internally for commercial purposes?
I think it kicks in when you distribute. For example, let’s say I have a fork of some GPL software and I’m maintaining it for myself. I don’t need to share the changes if I’m the only one using it.
The point is that people using a software should be able to read and modify (and share) the source when they want to.
IANAL and all that good stuff
If it’s only internal then technically the internal users should have access to the source code. Only the people who receive the software get the rights and freedoms of the GPL, no one else.
Oh I definitely agree with you there. I just think GPL is close but not close enough.
AGPL? Google has a ban on all AGPL software. Sounds like if you write AGPL software, corporations won’t steal it.
Code licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) MUST NOT be used at Google.
The license places restrictions on software used over a network which are extremely difficult for Google to comply with. Using AGPL software requires that anything it links to must also be licensed under the AGPL. Even if you think you aren’t linking to anything important, it still presents a huge risk to Google because of how integrated much of our code is. The risks heavily outweigh the benefits.
Any FLOSS license that makes a corporation shit its pants like this is good enough to start from IMO.
https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy
It’s criminal to let someone do the thing he actively volunteers to do? It’s criminal to use software that someone intentionally puts out into the world as free?
If you’re willing yo do something for free, people are going to let you 🤷♂️
It’s criminal the propaganda that lead people like this developer to believe they should do the work for free, and not worry, because the corporate world always gives back :)
That “propaganda” is the very idea behind free software. Work on what interests you and is of use to you, and share it with others so they can do with it whatever they want, as long as it stays free software.
The idea that all that work must be paid for by whoever uses it is exactly the opposite of what free software is about.The free software as a passion project idea became untenable long ago. It works for UNIX style utilities where the project stays small and changes can be managed by one person but breaks down on large projects.
As a user, try to get a feature added or bugfix merged. Its a weeks or sometimes months/years long back and forth trying to get the bikeshedding correct.
As a maintainer, spend time reading and responding to bug reports which are all unrelated to the project. Deal with a few pull requests that don’t quite fit the project, but might with more polish. Take a month off and wait for the inevitable “is this being maintained?” Issues reports.
I contribute back changes because I want those features but don’t want to maintain a longterm fork of the project. When they’re rejected or ignored its demoralizing. I can tell myself “This is the way of open source” but sometimes I just search for another project that better fits my needs rather than trying to work on the one I submitted changes to.
That is the happy path. The sad path of this is how many people look at the aforementioned problems and never bother to submit a pull request because it’s too much trouble? Git removed most of the technical friction of contributing, but there is still huge social friction.
Long story short: the man pages maintainer deserves something for all the “work” part of maintaining. He can continue to not be paid for the passion part.
I don’t get why the maintainer can’t just ignore all the additional workload and say “I do this in my free time, if that isn’t enough for your needs, pay me or find another solution.”
It’s easy to get pressured into thinking it’s your responsibility. There’s also the risk that an unhappy company will make a non-copyleft clone of your project, pump resources into it until it’s what everyone uses by default, and then add proprietary extensions so no one uses the open-source version anymore, which, if you believe in the ideals of Free Software, is a bad thing.
Not really. The problem with FOSS licensing is that it was too altruistic, with the belief that if enough users and corporations depended on the code, the community would collectively do the work necessary to maintain the project. Instead, capitalism chose to exploit FOSS as free labor most of the time, without any reciprocal investment. They raise an enormous amount of issues, and consume a large amount of FOSS developer time, without paying their own staff to fix the bugs they need resolved — in the software their products depend on. At that point the FOSS developer is no longer a FOSS developer, and instead is the unpaid slave labor of a corporation. Sure, FOSS devs could just ignore external inputs, but that’s not easy to do when you’ve invested years of your life in a project. Exploiting kindness may be legal, but it should never be justified or tolerated.
Sure, FOSS licenses legally permit that kind of use, but just because homeless shelters allow anyone to eat their food, and sleep in their beds, that doesn’t make the rich man who exploits that charity ethically or morally justified. The rich man who exploits that charity (i.e. free labor), and offers nothing in return, is a scummy dog cunt; there are no two ways about it. The presence of lecherous parasites can destroy the entire charity; they can mean the difference between sustainability and burnout.
FOSS should always be free for all personal, free, and non profit use, but once someone in the chain starts depending on FOSS to generate income and profit, some of that profit should always be reinvested in those dependencies. That’s what FOSS is now learning; to reject the exploitation and greed of lecherous parasites.
The point I don’t get is: How can the corporation turn the Dev into a slave laborer when he isn’t employed by them? He can just ignore their issues and say “deal with it, or pay me”. It’s not his problem the corporation depends on his software.
Because not enough creative believe themaxisnm of “fuck you pay me”.
So then it kinda just sounds like they’re doing things they want to do
Just, um, don’t invite that guy who helped out with the xz tools…
Everything needs to be slapped with the AGPL. Fuck corporate America
AGPL on documentation? What would that do?
Creative Commons-BY-NC would be better.
Alright we should use that then
AGPL doesn’t help. AGPL authors are explicitly pro-corporate use
I thought AGPL was the more restrictive version of GPL? Which license should we use so that corporates need to pay?
AGPL is the most restrictive OSI approved license (of the commonly used ones), but it is still a free (libre) open source license. My understanding is just that the AGPL believes in the end-users rights to access to the open source needs to be maintained and therefore places some burden to make the source available if it it’s being run on a server.
In general, companies run away from anything AGPL, however, some companies will get creative with it and make their source available but in a way that is useless without the backend. And even if they don’t maliciously comply with the license, they can still charge for their services.
As far as documentation goes, you could license documentation under AGPL, and people could still charge for it. It would just need to be kept available for end-users which i don’t think is really a barrier to use for documentation.
some companies will get creative with it and make their source available but in a way that is useless without the backend. And even if they don’t maliciously comply with the license, they can still charge for their services.
What is wrong with charging for your services?
Open source licences aren’t meant to make it impossible to earn money or anything. As long as companies comply with the licences I don’t see anything wrong with it.
If a licence wants to make it impossible to earn money they should put that in the actual licence.
Nothing. The context of this comment thread is “fuck corporations” and then proposing AGPL to solve that. I am merely pointing out that if their goal is to have a non-commercial license then AGPL doesn’t solve that, which is why i mention they can charge for their services with AGPL.
You said it was malicious though.
No. I said even if they don’t maliciously comply with the license [by making the open sourced code unusable without the backend code or some other means outside of scope of this conversation] then they can charge for it.
The malicous part is in brackets in the above paragraph. The license is an OSI approved license that allows commercialization, it would be stupid for me to call that malicious.
It is my understanding that the only difference applies to hosted software. For example, Lemmy is AGPL. If it were GPL, then a company could take the source code, modify it and host their own version without open sourcing their modifications. AGPL extends to freedoms of GPL to users of hosted software as well.
A real example of this would be truth social which is modified Mastodon and as AGPL those modifications are required to be open source as well.
Unfortunately it is still not enough. There have been many instances of people using these licenses and still corporations using their software without giving back, and developers being upset about it.
And unfortunately there are no popular licenses that limit that. I’ve seen a few here and there, but doesn’t seem to be a standard.
My old employer used to have people on staff just for technical writing. Some of that writing became the man pages you know, and some of it was ‘just’ documentation for commercial products - ID management and the like.
Then we sued IBM for breach of contract, and if you ask anyone about it they’ll parrot the IBM PR themes exactly, as their PR work was brutal. People in Usenet and Forums were very mean, and the company decided to stop offering much of the stuff that it was for free. It was very ‘f this’.
If man pages needed a volunteer to maintain, I know why ours tapered off.
Things like this make me wish I was a tech CEO. I’d totally be the guy ensuring we give back to projects if I was.
That is part of why you’re not a tech CEO. You’re not supposed to have compassion! No investor would want that.
P.S. This is an attack on CEOs and investors, not on you :)
Nah, the investors don’t see it as a benefit to your growth to pay people you don’t have to
10k for a company making millions annually is nothing, 1% or less. But split between some of these projects, especially the less appreciated or funded ones, can be life changing.
But you’re unfortunately right
The 10k can pay dividends in PR alone, and will attract more developers to apply for job openings.
Exactly. Promote it as community outreach, it’s more useful than feel-good Pictures at dog shelters.
Unfortunately, people like this don’t become CEOs.
is this sarcasm?
My company will let me purchase software, but it won’t let me donate to FOSS. Budgeting says it’s “unnecessary”. So screwed up. (A tiny amount money on my end, but still, it would be nice to help out a little.)
He absolutely deserves it.
Quick, print them all out now before they’re gone!
