@specter I somewhat disagree, particularly because copyright happens to be a useful tool to prevent companies from exploiting free labor. This applies differently to different software, though... and some people might not be worried about that in the slightest.

I agree that it's pretty annoying to sort through as an individual though. Something I'm planning is to write a "LICENSING.md" in all my repos to explain how the license is intended to be used for newcomers in a more, err, readable manner.

@specter Copyright is incredibly difficult though. It's far too easy to unintentionally permit something you didn't intend, or exclude a use case that you're actually okay with. So on a small scale, I do agree with the general sentiment. But IMO it's better for some things than others.

@fennifith "unintentionally permit something you didn't intend, or exclude a use case that you're actually okay with" what does that mean?

@specter I think the last two paragraphs of the unlicense speak to this a little; words mean different things in different places and it's weird

I recently came across a license intended to permit use by "unionized companies" (can't find the source rn - will update if I do) that seemed to exclude individual businesses in a weird way. Point being, it's difficult to take individual values and translate it into "who can use my software" and licenses are only a generalization of what we really want

@specter In my case, I don't want companies using my software for unethical means, nor do I want others to take unfair advantage of my labor - I want to be able to specify "pricing" for people that profit from my work so that I can get paid for my contributions, and also pay others who help maintain it. However, I still want the source to be available for others to see - mainly for transparency, but also in an individuality sense, I want people to have the freedom to mess with stuff themselves.

@specter When I think about how I view open source, it's more like a "Right to Repair for software" than an idea of unmoderated sharing for every use and purpose. I don't think my work should be free - however, I don't want to gatekeep it for individuals that can't afford "business prices", and I want people to be able to see how the stuff is built and modify it on their own.

@fennifith fair enough I never look at my labor as monetizable, sometimes to my own professional detriment, but especially not in open source. I think then it makes sense to avoid the public domain. I'm aiming at fluorescent lit folks internally screaming at their flakey devtools while taking anxious doses of Slack. I'm not sure I can help, but assuming they find a project of mine that makes their day easier then hell yeah! I'm not gonna burden you with copyright law on top of that

Follow

@fennifith I'm also extremely skeptical of the odds that any corp will utilize my work profitably considering most seem to still be using jQuery 😂 they don't move very fast but if they did I guess that's whevs

@specter I mean, just think about the amount of businesses that must inadvertently depend on `is-odd`...

npmjs.com/package/is-odd

I don't know if it's possible to quantify how much this dependency is worth. At least, I know some people that would *love* to get their hands on it... I wonder how much bitcoin you could mine before being found out

@fennifith that seems more like an issue around software distribution practices than licensing

@specter Okay it's actually disheartening to think that an archived repository with 28 commits has a greater value than all of my open source work combined. I don't like this. Why did I bring this up.

And yeah, this is a bit off topic. I was trying to respond more to valuing your work, i.e. if a big company actually uses your software... honestly, you'll probably get whatever you ask for, idk.

@fennifith Yeah I'm tryna just listen and keep my eyes peeled 👀 see a need fill a need, is-odd was a tiny but highly demanded need.

Also I love that the value is `(n % 2) === 1;` is too unwieldy and error prone to toss around raw. The value is JS sucks 🤣

@specter I'd think more about how much you value your own work, and compare that to how much you'd value it if you were paying someone else to do it for you. Creating sustainable open source software and making it actually last is... a bit difficult. If you end up with a nice bundle of users, bug bounties can be good for crowdfunding development (although I could see them bringing a weird priority to features over upkeep/organization as a maintainer). Different methods of funding come with other issues. idk

@specter My absolute dream would be having the ability to actually hire people and create a working business out of my software... that'll never happen though.

But still, *imagine* how good it could be. I could use companies' money to... create jobs for other people? Invest in the open source community? Accurately prioritize important tasks? Create a healthy environment for devs that actually makes people want to work there?

Alright this is approaching "own the means of production" territory now lol

@fennifith a lil agency that specializes in optimizing your engineering team itself ideally we work ourselves out of usefulness and migrate to the next place

@specter That would be amazing, I'd totally be on board with that lmao

I wonder what the best way to market that would be... honestly, with what I know about Companies and their Good Decisions, it would probably be "reinventing your developer experience with blockchain" that gets the most attention.

Among other things, I've also thought of starting a business that markets crappy tech lingo solutions to investors, then takes their money and invests in real ethical/FOSS projects & organizations for them.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!