Close as “won’t fix”. Easy. That’s what their customer service does to your ticket, too, if it’s too much to handle, so…
These bugs are always opened by IC developers who need help and have little agency. So,
Closed “won’t fix” with note
Contributions accepted if you want to deliver the fix. If you are not in a position to dictate to your employer how your time is spent (and, if so, I understand your problem) please report to your manager that you will be unable to use this software without contributing the fix. Alternately, switch to [competitor]. Your manager should understand that the cost to the company of contributing a fix for this bug is less than the switching cost for [competitor]. I wish you luck, either way.
And then make the above text a template response, so you don’t have to spend your time typing it more than once.
🤌
And when the opensource maintainer changes the license to adapt to the economic situation, the OSIsts rush in to tell the maintainer how evil they are.
I personally think some types of openly developed software projects should have a strict non-commercial license: if companies aren’t willing to contribute back to the source IMO they shouldn’t be granted permission to freeload & have volunteers fix issues their paying customers run into
Donations are possibly a bit of an exception here - there are quite a few companies that still do this, albeit growing slimmer by the day.
Another big problem IMO is the subset of users that start attacking maintainers and volunteers because their “free app stopped working” etc. I see that a lot, mostly in the arduino community, but especially egregiously on the Zabbix project - I imagine a lot of those users are companies who aren’t even paying/donating to the project
From my understanding, companies that use open software in paid products are charging for their services and support and not the software itself. Correct me if I’m wrong, as I may well be. I just know that’s how companies like Elastic and what not get away with primarily using OSS in their products.
if companies aren’t willing to contribute back to the source IMO they shouldn’t be granted permission to freeload & have volunteers fix issues their paying customers run into
I agree with this although it does make me wonder what the world would look like if things had been that way since the beginning. Would the current opensource environment exist? Regardless, the times are different now and opensource is becoming more and more recognized, companies are massively freeloading and a few privileged developers get to make money on their opensource projects.
What does that license have to do with AI?
It’s an explicit “opt-out” by the OP, such that their content cannot (legally) be used to train LLMs or such (Chat GPT, Github Copilot, etc)Well, that’s what I assumed until i read the license terms. It doesn’t explicitly mention AI or LLMs, but it does say
You may not use the material for commercial purposes
Which i assume has the same limitations for AI training, for commercial AI
(I am not a lawyer)
Also not a lawyer, but my understanding has always been that a license grants permissions, not limits them. No license means no permissions granted. Most sites have terms that you agree to (by posting to the site) that tell you what they may do with your content, and I don’t think a license you tack onto it can change that (though it can grant permission to others).
As for scrapers and such, they were never granted any permissions to use anything. They just don’t care. A license is also unlikely to change that.
I think licenses on posts are pointless and tacky, personally, but I could be missing something.
What does that license have to do with your comment? Are you trying to claim ownership of a sentence?
What’s your project chum?
Is this the case? Don’t corporations usually sponsor a little bit at least?
In most cases no. Sometimes they let their developers contribute to the open source projects for a small percentage of their working time.
You haven’t met many corporations have you.
When I do, I don’t ask them whether they donate to the foss projects they consume, let’s put it that way.
Some send table scraps to bigger organization, like the Apache Foundation. The millions of small projects that they depend on get shit.
Unfortunate 🫤
You mean give away money without being billed?
money being billed
Sorry, what do you mean?
sorry must’ve mistyped on the phone. I corrected my post. I basically meant: corporations pay bills, without having a bill they do not pay stuff. they do not give away money if they don’t have to. so paid support contracts are imho a good way for corporations to pay for FOSS. donations not so much
Not one company I’ve worked at has ever paid a license for anything if it was at all possible to do it freely.
EPPlus trying to get money for their hard work? Guess we are stuck on the free version forever then…
It’s fucking embarrassing.
If you’re a big open source project, sure, sometimes. If you’re one of the hundreds or thousands smaller libraries they use, no, because there’s no PR to gain from sponsoring a small project.
This is sadly true. As a tech lead i try to steer the team away from the old thinking that oss should not get developer love. At the very least make a small poc of the issue and supply that. We are all developers. You dont try to make it hard on coworkers, so dont make it hard of maintainers of an oss project you use.
If they want to submit a PR they’re more than welcome… otherwise they can fucking pay you or GTFO.
I don’t see a negative. It’s foss so you ought to be relaxed about others using your code. The issues are probably just articulating problems that were already there. If it’s stuff you don’t care about… it’s a foss repository so you just ignore it.
Until the death threats and doxxing start coming in
