There seems to be this very unpleasant new model of development, where companies start off as nonprofits, often employing open source or permissive licenses. Then at a certain point once they have leveraged that to scale, and they snap back permissions and licenses or close new development. Then they transfer ownership or organizational structure to be for profit.
I think it’s a really toxic and damaging approach that jeopardizes the social contract making open source software possible.
I almost feel like we need a new system for open source that examines organizational structure. An open source project that’s receiving millions in VC should not be in the same category as an open source project that’s funded on Patreon or directly by users.
Yeah, it is portfolio-padding. I see this happen all of the time. Like, I see programs and other technological products start as newborn projects. It takes 1 - 3 years average to see them blossom, they have their big break and then somewhere down the road, the creator(s) are looking for buyers. Because they’ve made this project now with the means of profit so they can live a life worry-free from all of the years they worked developing said project.
And you know, I get it, I mean I’m not going to disagree with the principle. Don’t we all want to live worry-free with money for the rest of our lives?
But I do also get a tinge of hatred towards some of them because of the hundreds to thousands and even millions of people that have believed in them to use their products faithfully. And now they’re facing a new entity, god help us if it’s someone from a private firm or someone who’s a shareholder ass-kisser. Because now we’re going to experience the dip and we’ll be troubled with moving on or sticking with the shit that now has degraded because the whole thing is entirely for-profit.
There seems to be this very unpleasant new model of development, where companies start off as nonprofits, often employing open source or permissive licenses. Then at a certain point once they have leveraged that to scale, and they snap back permissions and licenses or close new development. Then they transfer ownership or organizational structure to be for profit.
I think it’s a really toxic and damaging approach that jeopardizes the social contract making open source software possible.
I almost feel like we need a new system for open source that examines organizational structure. An open source project that’s receiving millions in VC should not be in the same category as an open source project that’s funded on Patreon or directly by users.
Remember that Patreon is a for-profit service.
Fair… but recognizable. I meant in the generic sense like Kleenex or bandaids.
There is also liberapay, etc.
Yeah, it is portfolio-padding. I see this happen all of the time. Like, I see programs and other technological products start as newborn projects. It takes 1 - 3 years average to see them blossom, they have their big break and then somewhere down the road, the creator(s) are looking for buyers. Because they’ve made this project now with the means of profit so they can live a life worry-free from all of the years they worked developing said project.
And you know, I get it, I mean I’m not going to disagree with the principle. Don’t we all want to live worry-free with money for the rest of our lives?
But I do also get a tinge of hatred towards some of them because of the hundreds to thousands and even millions of people that have believed in them to use their products faithfully. And now they’re facing a new entity, god help us if it’s someone from a private firm or someone who’s a shareholder ass-kisser. Because now we’re going to experience the dip and we’ll be troubled with moving on or sticking with the shit that now has degraded because the whole thing is entirely for-profit.