Github is a private company and as such unfit to protect open source.
What is needed is an autonomous, government funded organisation that will allow the world to get rid of companies making money off the FOSS ecosystem.
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
114 points (96.7% liked)
Open Source
31218 readers
444 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
get rid of companies making money off the FOSS
I'm afraid if we discourage companies from adopting open source we'll end up with even more closed source garbage.
There are industry sectors where closed source is the norm, and it just leads to more vendor lock-in and less standardization and interop.
I'm a bit young to say for sure, but I believe closed source was the norm in the software world 20-30 years ago and openness was stigmatized. I certainly don't want to live in that world.
I work for a company that makes money supporting FLOSS. Our members pay fairly hefty membership fees because they have a vested interest in their chips being well supported by Linux and the wider ecosystem. That money funds common projects they all benefit from all well as numerous maintainers in projects keeping those projects ticking.
The engineers on the project I mostly work on are predominantly paid to work on it. We value our hobbyist itch scratchers (~10% off contributors) but it's commercial money that keeps those patches reviewed and flowing.
The closest to that would be Codeberg. It's a nice initiative, and some big projects like LibreWolf are already using it.
Public good does not mean invitation into license violation, such as training AI models without consent.
I'm ok with not considering it "public good" when something has a license that sets conditions and it's under Copyright of a particular private person/entity. But if you do need to ask consent to a private party for the use of something in a derivative work of certain conditions, then I don't think it makes sense to call it a public good.
The "asking for consent" is just a paraphrase and not meant literally. AI tools will be trained by violating the license of GPL licensed code in example. And that I was referring to as "without consent".
Money pwease!