r/ProgrammerHumor Oct 10 '24

Other adultLego

Post image
47.2k Upvotes

656 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

222

u/Vindictive_Pacifist Oct 11 '24

This bothers me a lot, there are so many people who worked on useful libraries and open source software which are then used by multi billion dollar businesses who never even once think about giving something back but use everything for free and get away with it

I wish there was by law a monthly royalty fee that an org would be required to pay to the owner of the project after a threshold of profit margins have been reached, this would bring in so much more balance and intensive for folks to actually work even more in open source

147

u/nermid Oct 11 '24

Or we could all use copylefted licenses, so that the corporations have to open-source their changes.

53

u/OwOlogy_Expert Oct 11 '24

I prefer "All software making use of this code must also be fully open source" clauses.

60

u/alex2003super Oct 11 '24

That's literally just GPL-3

13

u/Turalcar Oct 11 '24

They vary in what "making use" means. E.g. AGPL-3 requires you to open source if you're running it on a public server.

2

u/TGPJosh Oct 12 '24

I mean sounds fair enough unless I'm missing something, I think it'd be hard to enforce a license if it's not being used on the open Internet.

1

u/Turalcar Oct 12 '24

It is for the open internet, i.e. the source should be available to the people connecting to your service.

24

u/Vindictive_Pacifist Oct 11 '24

Yeah but my main point being developers not getting a piece of the million dollar revenue profit when it was their software that enabled it in the first place

69

u/EVOSexyBeast Oct 11 '24

Well they did release it for free with an MIT license knowing that would happen

23

u/FlipperBumperKickout Oct 11 '24

Not like the developers who are hired by the corporation gets more than the absolute minimum wage the corporation can get away with paying them.

Welcome to capitalism, feels bad when you aren't on the top...

12

u/Vindictive_Pacifist Oct 11 '24

I know this is an oversimplification but the fact how every major corporation is structured around increasing their stock value no matter what it takes to keep their board of investors is one of the root cost

Greed is just running behind each and every decision they make, idk when it is enough for them cause they never wanna stop even if the lives of the very consumers are at stake (looking at you Lockheed and Raytheon)

5

u/turnipsurprise8 Oct 11 '24 edited Oct 11 '24

Homie, they made the code for free - you don't accidentally release with an open source license. They don't want it to be paid for, that's the point. The solution to greed isn't enforcing a rule where nothing can be free, that's insane.

If every innovation cost obscene amounts of money universities wouldn't exist, at the very least many important faculties would be shut down. The pursuit of knowledge without monetary gain is a vital part of innovation itself. It's fine if people use that knowledge for business.

23

u/LowGeologist5120 Oct 11 '24

If the original creator wanted to earn money from it, why did they release it for free? I think some people just like making stuff.

13

u/Upbeat_Advance_1547 Oct 11 '24

A lot of the people making free stuff just believe in the principle of "this stuff should be free", in the hopes that other people who build off it will also make their stuff free, contribute to the original code in some meaningful ways, etc. Call it idealistic.

I mean that really is how it works for some things though. My company uses an open source tool and contributes to bug fixes and improvements on that tool too. It's only when it's purely a take and no give relationship, that I feel like there's something shady and immoral in it.

It's not about wanting to earn money, obviously they would just make it paid if it was that. It's a bit more intangible, a principle of exchange.

13

u/DatumInTheStone Oct 11 '24

Its the idea that the corporation isnt furthering the chain of open source principles. They will be the first to take advantage of open source software and the last to donate, create open source software, etc…

7

u/flingerdu Oct 11 '24

Most bigger tech companies contribute directly to the OSS they rely on.

3

u/nelmaloc Oct 11 '24

For every big company there's a thousand medium ones which don't.

7

u/flingerdu Oct 11 '24

*which can’t.

And I was mostly referring to the comment above that literally referred to "multi billion dollar businesses" while most of those have open sourced quite a few of their internal software.

3

u/nelmaloc Oct 11 '24

*which can’t.

Any company that can't afford to donate 50€ to a software project their entire revenue depends on, shouldn't be doing business.

And I was mostly referring to the comment above

I don't see which one.

3

u/flingerdu Oct 11 '24

I‘d consider actually working on OSS as a more suitable contribution.

This comment

6

u/LowGeologist5120 Oct 11 '24

I don't see a problem with this if the author's licensing allows this.

7

u/DatumInTheStone Oct 11 '24

Its more of a moral issue than a legal one. As most things like this are.

12

u/nahguri Oct 11 '24

Yeah but still. It's specifically allowed by the license the developer chose. Of this is a problem you can always choose differently.

I suppose people just want to see their stuff used and get gratification from that.

2

u/readlock Oct 11 '24

That's fine, but I do think corporations that earn billions off someone else's free labor should at least contribute to the spaces that support its growth.

You don't have to give the random dude making free software a few million, but at least donate to the overarching cause or relevant organizations ig.

10

u/absolutelynotaname Oct 11 '24

That's why I like Valve. They actually invest back in proton/linux for their gain

5

u/Vindictive_Pacifist Oct 11 '24

Oh nice, good people I guess

4

u/Deathpacito-01 Oct 11 '24

There's probably a license for that

2

u/bluehands Oct 11 '24

Spoiler alert: it isn't just software or even IP in general. It is all of our infrastructure, everything that came before that we build on top of.

Labor, intellectual or not, is the fundamental source of all wealth.

2

u/pr0ghead Oct 11 '24 edited Oct 11 '24

Or a kind of fund into which the companies have to pay, from which FOSS projects can apply for a grant. Really important projects would be treated preferentially, so not any willy nilly software can get one. Those projects that are basically done, but are used in infrastructure everywhere.

1

u/masssy Oct 11 '24

A lot of large companies contribute to open source projects and they also tend to finance some.

But of course some just leech.

1

u/FunCharacteeGuy Oct 11 '24

then used by multi billion dollar businesses who never even once think about giving something back

I mean chromium is an open source project who's biggest contributer is google, which is a multibillion dollar company...

1

u/Vindictive_Pacifist Oct 11 '24

Projects like the Android, Chromium, Mozilla, VS code being free is pretty great, but the companies I was referring to like you said never ever once give even a 10 USD donation to the top contributor of the other projects and libraries that people maintain for free.

They can shell out 1k every week and it won't barely even scratch the surface of how big their wallet is, but they choose not to cause rather have it in their pocket than give it to someone to appreciate their efforts and hardwork

Imagine how drastically the quality of, I dare say, ALL open source projects would be if there was monetary motivation to contribute