other_cat@piefed.zip to Open Source@lemmy.mlEnglish · 2 days agoOpen Source Developers Are Exhausted, Unpaid, and Ready to Walk Awayitsfoss.comexternal-linkmessage-square19linkfedilinkarrow-up1161arrow-down13file-textcross-posted to: selfhosted@lemmy.worldlinux@lemmy.mlopensource@programming.dev
arrow-up1158arrow-down1external-linkOpen Source Developers Are Exhausted, Unpaid, and Ready to Walk Awayitsfoss.comother_cat@piefed.zip to Open Source@lemmy.mlEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square19linkfedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: selfhosted@lemmy.worldlinux@lemmy.mlopensource@programming.dev
minus-squarems.lane@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·21 hours agoI don’t think we need post open. Rather, ditch MIT/BSD for GPL (with no LGPL bandaids) and enforce- NO WARRANTY
minus-squareonlinepersona@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·11 hours agoHow is that going to fund opensource?
minus-squareCaptain Beyond@linkage.ds8.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·edit-28 hours agoSwitching to a proprietary license doesn’t “fund open source” it funds proprietary software Which, fine, if your business model is incompatible with an open source license then sure. But don’t present it as something it isn’t Edit: You can dual license under a strong copyleft (strong enough to scare moochers away) and a proprietary license (fauxpen or traditional).
I don’t think we need post open.
Rather, ditch MIT/BSD for GPL (with no LGPL bandaids) and enforce-
NO WARRANTY
How is that going to fund opensource?
Switching to a proprietary license doesn’t “fund open source” it funds proprietary software
Which, fine, if your business model is incompatible with an open source license then sure. But don’t present it as something it isn’t
Edit: You can dual license under a strong copyleft (strong enough to scare moochers away) and a proprietary license (fauxpen or traditional).