Post AStlPOWieIVfZYaPTs by millihertz@oldbytes.space
 (DIR) More posts by millihertz@oldbytes.space
 (DIR) Post #AStlPOWieIVfZYaPTs by millihertz@oldbytes.space
       2023-02-21T05:23:50Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       someone posted an "open source is broken" thing yesterday featuring the plight of the lead (only?) core-js developer... and all i could think was that the primary way in which open source is broken was intentional, and by design - it allows corporations, the very people who should be paying the upkeep, to freeloadthe thing about corporations is that if they're not required to pay for something, there's a legal case to be made that their fiduciary duty to their shareholders requires them not to. at least the Free Software movement required them to contribute back in kind - the Open Source movement was created to push back against that, and even now people buy into the corporate-shill message that putting even the tiniest barrier in the way of a corporation leeching off your work is somehow hostile to the entire intent and purpose of open sourceand yeah, the core-js dev totally should just down tools and leave. fuck every company depending on their work without paying for its upkeep.
       
 (DIR) Post #AStlPPsNdFQll1jDsm by SlicerDicer@bikeshed.party
       2023-02-21T08:21:54.270152Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       But what does the MIT License  say? Would you prefer GPL that is cancer that infects everything it touches? I will stick with MIT and BSD as a developer that does not force my hand. I prefer to contribute as I want to if I do. That means in most cases there is zero contribution from me as well, I do not like dealing with the madness of this. What madness? That due to everyone being concerned about who owns what? I am forced to relinquish all rights. That means that the project can sell my work. That is more heinous of a violation IMO. To take the software and sell it to a company. That is the developers then working on all the backs of the contributors without handing back. Merely using software not this damaging. It was not the model of Open Source to have it sold, to the highest bidder. The community maintained should have passed the torch if the OG did not want to do it anymore.The odd part is that FreeRTOS for instance went from GPL to MIT. I find a hard time arguing with the liberation Amazon did of that project. However I do not agree with that being purchased by them.
       
 (DIR) Post #AStlPQtTqduAujFcEi by millihertz@oldbytes.space
       2023-02-21T05:40:06Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       there is, of course, a specific issue around web apps, which aren't "distributed" in the conventional sense. in the context of a web app, the hasty fix is that the act of exposing it to customers for the purpose of generating revenue, whether directly or indirectly, should be considered "distribution"