Sorry, but if they don't have to, they aren't going to. Don't release something under a permissive license and then complain when people/companies make use of it. Especially if you use a BSD-like license... you asked for it.

Exactly. This is ridiculous. Open-sources licenses are free for everyone.

The open-source community is really getting quite confused recently.

The open-source community is really getting quite confused recently.

I don't think so. It's just confusing any moral obligation with the cold, harsh reality of capitalism. Developers have to eat, just less lavishly than CEOs. Situations like WP don't help either that try to force the issue of making people pay for open-source 'free' software.

"Open-sources licenses are free for everyone. The open-source community is really getting quite confused recently."

The GNU General Public License (GPL) requires that any modifications made to the software must be released under the same GPL license. This means corporations cannot take the work of open-source authors, modify it, and distribute it as proprietary closed-source software for profit. If they do, they are legally liable.

Corporations should not sell any software based on the work of Open Source GPL software. Period.

Common open-source licenses include:

GPL (GNU General Public License): This license requires that any modifications to the software must also be released under the GPL. This ensures that the software remains open-source.

MIT License: This license is more permissive, allowing users to modify and distribute the software, even in closed-source projects.

Apache License 2.0: This license is also permissive, allowing users to use, modify, and distribute the software, even in commercial products.

> Corporations should not profit from the work of Open Source software. Period.

Firstly, even RMS does not object to companies making money from free software. Making money is not even in the equation. It is about freedom. Otherwise, the likes of Red Hat would never have existed. That is just nonsense.

Secondly, most of these companies are actually making money from providing infrastructure, not the software itself. This is why the WP Engine debacle is such a nothing burger. They are selling hosting, not software. The software is just a means to and end.

I didn't mention the GPL (it doesn't speak about money) but that's what I meant when speaking about permissive licenses, as in BSD-like. At least with the GPL, you may get something back in the form of contributions.

The licence is very unlikely to be selected at random. If somebody is putting it out under a permissive licence it's going to be for a reason. A reason that they know and you don't.

> Corporations should not sell any software based on the work of Open Source GPL software. Period

This is completely wrong. You are not doing the open-source community any good peddling this nonsense.

> Exactly. This is ridiculous. Open-sources licenses are free for everyone.

This is really basic greed and rabid opportunism.

Isn't it in the best interest of companies using open source projects to make sure those are well staffed, and their developers can focus entirely on improving whatever they are doing? What will happen to a company building its business on some FOSS project if that project is abandoned due to the maintainer(s) having a hard time to make ends meet? Won't they be forced to shell out lots of money to save what can be saved, assuming they aren't forced to quit too?

Yes, yes, cows give milk away for free, who said you're obliged to feed them? Milk is "free for everyone"...

Some parts are, but I contend that these people are not. This is an entirely voluntary pledge, backed up by nothing more than the shame felt by people who know what the billboard means and the confusion felt by everyone else who tries to understand the request. They are not trying to make demands they have no right to demand, the way that some open source owners (often not authors, but the companies that once employed them) have tried. Their request is not outlandish, the way that, for instance, Bruce Perens's 1% of revenue every year no matter how little "post-open" software you use is. They aren't harpooning long-held principles of open source like the right to fork, modify, and distribute without anyone's permission.

I support businesses making voluntary donations to open source they rely on. I don't expect many companies to actually do it, but it is logical from the companies' perspective as well as from the projects'. I have been in a position before where an employer wanted to use some piece of open source software, and when we wanted new things added to it, they paid me to add them. Eventually, I was also doing some maintenance work, though in these cases never the central maintainer, on the time my employer pays for. That was helpful to them and to the project, and it doesn't hurt to ask more companies to do that and to increase the amount they give back. I'm not sure advertisements on signs is going to help with that, but the thing they're trying with this campaign is something I would support.

I think the problem lies in that xkcd.

The big companies are betting the farm on (say) openSSL (either knowingly or unknowingly) and seem to think it's someone else's problem when there's a zero day.

Given such libraries levels of importance to the underpinning of modern society, you've thought there would be a commensurate amount of investment in the the care and maintenance.

Sadly, in many cases this is not true. Not only is it turtles all the way down, they're someone else's turtles.

Nah it's just foolish and privileged young developers who think they'll pay rent with GitHub stars once their parents kick them out from the basement.

Count the assumptions being made here.

"Count the assumptions being made here"

or the downvotes

> 'Chad, you're asking me to spend ten million on maintainers.'

That there might be part of the problem. If just a few companies would be willing to cough up a fairly modest amount of money to support projects that they rely on, it would be enough.

I do worry that some companies might be put off by the potential fallout if they contribute some smaller amount of money and are publicly called out for it. I mean, why run the risk of some bad publicity over what for many companies would be a trivial amount. Better perhaps to be one of many that contribute nothing and avoid criticism.

Much of those donations could help fund infrastructure. Many coders are doing what they do because they enjoy it as a hobby: that would include me. Paying people like me would just complicate our tax situations and I have a full-time job anyway.

< "Paying people like me would just complicate our tax situations..."

I wish some large company would complicate my tax situation. (No, I'm not an open source developer, just making a joke.)

Many large companies do contribute to FOSS maintenance, though it's more in the area of 100k than 10m per year.

One issue is where does the money actually go. I was happy to donate to LibreOffice until it turned out that donations weren't actually going to support coding.

You need to look at contributors list. Find the one you like or pick a random person. Contact them and ask them for bank details because you have a large sum of monies to transfer. Just don't use any funny accent.

They always ignore me when I ask for the industry standard wealth transfer fee.

This requires some research to find the best way to benefit the projects you rely on, and it's not always obvious. In some cases, it's something a group like this could help with, identifying an organization that provably directs donations to actual maintenance work. The other approach that companies can use is paying an employee or contractor to do maintenance work on a project.

...can I send them a bill for all the times I find something broken and have to invest time in identifying the bug, working around it then raising an adequately detailed issue & solution in the vague hope it'll eventually make it out into a release?

The costs & benefits of using OSS aren't all on one side of the aisle. If we're getting into a proper commercial relationship for your product it's a different game with different expectations.

And that is why I disapprove of any mandatory payment system for open source software. Well that, and about ten other reasons, some of them bigger, but it's in the list. However, this is not that. This is a voluntary payment to a project you rely on. They're asking for that voluntary payment to be increased, but they're not mandating that any payment happens or taking away rights if they don't get one.

Since the payments are voluntary, not having support is easily justified. If you find that the project is such a buggy mess that you are wasting time and money finding and reporting bugs, then maybe this isn't good enough software for you to use. I've had that experience with open source software before, software where I decided I had to do significant maintenance on it to get it into workable condition, start a similar project from scratch, find another option that can do the task, or not have this functionality. I don't get to bill the provider of software in that case, although I'm much less likely to donate anything.

Even if you had paid for software, you usually don't get to do anything like this. I've had lots of bugs in software I purchased, and in none of those cases did I get to charge the authors for the existence of them. In one case, I did report so many of them that the author returned my money, but that was it.

...am I the only one who thinks that the billboard design looks like something a 12-year-old might come up with?

Is it an appeal to the better nature of CTOs, or a political cartoon in a lowbrow tabloid, or a Heavy Metal album cover?

I "get" the need to have something short and snappy that will grab people's attention at 55mph (yes, knowing San Fran traffic, that is optimistic), but I think they could have done better.

Off the top of my head:

a) a simplified version of the XKCD "developers" cartoon mentioned in TFA, with a big arrow pointing to the guy at the bottom of the stack and the caption "He needs to eat too :)"

b) Text along the lines of "Build your Billion-Dollar business with Open Source bricks. Spare some change for the people who make those bricks."

As you can tell, I am not in Marketing, but I'm sure some of you could do better!

Could be wrong but that looks remarkably like Emeryville in the background. Which would place the billboard somewhere on the south side of the Bay Bridge lanes heading towards the toll-plaza. Which is basically the Port of Oakland. San Francisco a.k.a "The City" is at the other end of the bridge. About 5 miles away. This is sort of important to the locals. Not only is "there no there there" in Oakland there is no "where" either. At least in recent decades.

Someone who has driven bother eastern sections of the Bay Bridge way too often over the last five decades. And still prefers the old bridge. Not the Jerry Brown $15+ Billion ego trip. By the time all the bonds have been payed off. Hopefully after the next Big One collapses the "Signature" part of the bridge. Which it will.

I say that, as someone that does have some GPL licensed code that I have contributed to in major and minor ways.

You see, you come up something "great" for the Linux kernel (for example) and you don't have a "sponsor" (that could read, "supportive employer") then what you are trying to contribute may never make it into the git for the kernel. Why? Just trying to keep out special interest projects without commitment.

So, are you "not paying" if you allow and support your employees contributions to open source development and support?

The motivations for open source developers isn't about the almighty dollar, but we do appreciate it when somebody backs the fact that we are developers and tries not to squash us like a bug.

So, my recommendation would be, "support open source". In all the ways that means to you.

Paying? If you're allowing your employees to engage in open source development and support, you are "paying". Keep it up.

If you are strictly leveraging open source software, I do recommend you consider what you can give, and for many, they only thing they can think of is money... and that's fine. But it's not a requirement. To say that is about money goes against the principles of open source software.

So, I do like to ask non-contributors and "strict users only" of free software.... ask yourself, would it be ok for "insert free software here" to go away? That might suggest "money", but might also suggest closer collaboration, development and support, etc. Anyway, just ideas for how you can help preserve open source. Not a requirement, just ideas.