>Mind you, many open source developers never see an annual income that large. Indeed, according to a 2024 Tidelift maintainer report, 60 percent of open source maintainers are unpaid, and 60 percent have quit or considered quitting, largely due to burnout and lack of compensation. Oh, and of those getting paid, only 26 percent earn more than $1,000 a year for their work. They'd be better paid asking "Would you like fries with that?" at your local McDonald's.https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/25/open_source_bill_opinion/The freetards finally realized the open source is a scam to make the masses work for free. But will they have the balls to do anything about it?
>>108482615something something stable doors
>>108482615Open source isn’t a tip jar in fact there’s no expectation of financial compensation whatsoeverGrifters can leave the FOSS space
>>108482615this is why I always use a CHAD license. free for personal and a fixed % for commercial.
>>108482615This is why you should use GPL or AGPL.
>>108482667The goyim must develop for free
This feels like that Rick and Morty scene where Jerry stomps out of the day car center saying "I'm leaving" and the lady goes "Ok then that was always allowed."
>>108482615can't help but feel I'm being played herethe message is clear enough, kill FOSS. I respectfully decline
>>108482703If i build something because i need it i may as well make it foss to fuck with Jewish companies.
>>108482615I used to think open source software always bad because developers didn't really care about user requests for fixes/additions.But after seeing how shameless they are, especially since most of the requests come from users who don't contribute either in writing code or financially, I think developers are justified in doing so.
But corpodevs are the largest contributors to (useful) foss
>>108482615>yessss goyim don't EVER make anything for free!>you must NEVER publish code as open source or make things that could instead be charged for!Fuck off demoralization demon your shit doesn't work on good men.
>>108482615FOSS is getting jeeted.
I figure open source was meant to be "free to use and modify to your own liking" and not "free to take and charge others to use">>108483188more like>"the goyim must code for free while I take free code and charge other goyim to use it! I'm a jewnius!"
As an open source developer I don't have money to fund other open source developers.
>>108482615the licenses were designed to let this happen. i don't get why people are so assmad about it.
>>108482615Its not about the moneyMoney corruptsIf anything, the Corpo sponsorships that have invaded foss are ruining it
>>108482615>the registerthey are retarded
>>108482615NEETs have been working for free for too long. When will actual money making professionals make a contribution? FOSS ends here, I'm buying fruit next!
The "companies making billions" usually employ or patronize foss devs, especially important ones, and actively contribute to development
>>108482615Its over
Who needs foss when you have claude
I suppose the Hypocratic License might bend over to this idea.
just use AGLP+NIGGER and proprietary ci-licensingor you prefer MIT? seems like a you problem
>>108482724Won't it be better to just flood the net with vibe coding slop codes so these LLM crap get poisoned?
Only legitimate retards think a fucking software license makes literally any difference.
>Ah yes, time to release this software for free>WTF why is nobody paying me!?Do people really?
>>108482615Then it's no longer open source nor free software.Restrictions for corporations breaks both the OSI definitions and the FSF definitions of software.AGPLv1-only+NIGGER is all you need.
>>108482693this
>>108484164Freetards are mentally ill
What can I do about it? I used to AGPL but now AI can just wash over licenses.
>>108482693pointless, just ask claude to rewrite it and change the license. https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/327
>>108482724Yeah, that'll show 'em. You use all that clout.
>>108482615It is called dual-licensing.You release your project by AGPLv3 and if a corpo wants to use it, you offer them a different license against payment.Corpos are fighting tooth and nail above anyone who does that, but it will eventually be the model of the future.Qt works that way, redis does as well.
>>108484592Microjeet still seething to this day.
>>108484569Then you end up with low quality garbage.You can see with Windows 11 what vibe coding gets you.If they do this, it results in corpo products always being qualitatively worse than FOSS.
>>108484623>Then you end up with low quality garbage.maybe, less of a problem when the LLM is not actually doing a clean room implementation and already has an extensive test suite to test against.
These """"open source troons"""" are just as bad as modder troons who put their shit works on patreon
>>108484647That will only be the case in little libraries. Little things that you could easily write yourself as well, the LLM doesn't change anything here.>extensive test suitesThe Rust coreutils rewrite project thought that passing the GNU coreutils test suite is enough.They were painfully wrong and it all crashed and burned when Canonical rolled it out. Then all the people invested in the rewrite blamed the corpo for it. And at the end of the day, the corpo lost money, because stability is their whole selling point, which they do not have anymore.You ALWAYS end up with lower quality.Even if the testuites would cover everything, you still have a risk of the LLM just hallucinating random garbage, delivering a security vulnerability to you that you can't see.Why would anyone want to use a corpo hallucinated rewrite if it is inherently lower quality?
>>108482615FOSSbros were alright up until 2010, then it all took a weird turn.
>>108482615>make project>release for free>provide a license that literally and explicitly specified they can make money off of your work without compensation>wtf why arent consumers paying or donating
Death to open sores!Long live free software!
open source = cuckery
Open Source never meant free.You can still charge for access, support, etc just fine. RedHat proves the business model works if you actually have a GOOD product
>>108482615if you dont value your work, time, life, effort, then you work on open source.if you do value any of those, then you charge them rightfully for your time, effort, skill, etc
>>108485584Based
>>108485582Red Hat barely qualifies because they don't disclose the source code for their shit unless you're already paying them. Their whole business strategy is considered controversial in the open source space.
>>108482615Claude build me a replica of this project and licence it as agpl +nigger pls.
>>108482615After half a lifetime of experience with the FOSS community, nothing makes me happier than seeing all their code get stolen by AI.
>>108482693don't forget to add +NIGGER
For open source: use GPL3 and or AGPL3For closed source: just a binary that works offline without any license without any restrictionsEncourage people to pay for feature request, the software is free but if you want special features, optimizations for your workflow or even compiled rpm/deb/appimage pay up. $$$ don't expect t hat for freeAnyone who uses MIT is asking to be stepped on by big tech and get nothing for returnAnyone who licenses proprietary software with patent restrictions or right to repair restrictions is an oppressor that depends on state coercionAnyone who codes for free with no joy or reward in return and doesn't bargain for a fair wage (like Denis Pushkarev) is haunted by phantom constructs of "communal duty" Denis could have showed off core-js updates and refused to release them until he was given a fair wage by the corpos. But he cucked out and is an example of what not to do ever. Only code out of passion never code out of communal loyalty.Lastly, this one is highly personalized opinion and not as logically supported. I recommend everyone when passionately coding to only release stuff publicly that doesn't relate to servers and infrastructure. Such as creative programming, image processing and graphical tools, that way normies will use it but big tech won't.
>>108482615So just don't start or maintain open source projects?Ain't nobody forcing you to do it.
>>108482615>british redditwho cares
>>108487951I just throw your AGPL or GPL code through Claude and on the other side I get proprietary free to use code. Thanks for the free work goyim, keep training that LLM.
>>108483451>patronize FOSSDon't look up how much Apple is contributing to FreeBSD kek
They are trying their best to kill the spirit of FOSS and GNU LINUX. They want you to pay every month to use a real time coded LLM as a OS, while you stream video games with a AI filter on you phone. This is the future they want.
>>108488654That future is only possible because of FOSS, without FOSS there wouldn't be an enormous free dataset for them to slurp up and feed into their model.
>>108482615Should absolutely charge corporations that make over x dollars per interval using your software, their profit/some n dollars per interval to maintain and support it with no implied contract for support or feature req/bug fix prioitization.I've been saying this since I found out instagram donated $0 to any of the projects they built their service on before or after their $18bn sale in 2016.If they want to rewrite your shit wih an LLM and support it with infinity jeets let that's on them.
>>108482615In fact, you should update to a license that retroactively encapsulates previous usage under other licenses and threaten legal battles if they don't pay or get off your tit, let them have a crisis changing frameworks or spend some time telling us how they really feel about our work in court, on the record.
>>108488625>I justNo you don't.
>>108482615some retards came to realize this, but it's too late, they will make "new" versions using their LLMs and argue that they aren't violating any copyright lmao.reminder: FOSS != open source.
>>108488858You mean free software != open source. FOSS literally stands for "Free and Open Source Software".
>>108488929yet the "free and" makes it a completely different game. you can charge and distribute FOSS software in any way you like it.btw, the != is a commutative operation, dumbo.
>>108488625But you can't enforce the proprietary license of the claude code because Claude made it not you.and soon open source models like qwen will catch up to make offline open source AI vibe coding just as good
No.
>>108482615it never made sense as anything more than a hobby
>>108482615> just give your years of work away for freeno
not everyone is so desperate for money that they feel the need to monetise their hobby
>>108482708>reddit and mortyplease go back, zoomer
>>108482615Stallman was right again? Must be a day that ends with the letter 'y'.
>>108482615The trannies and Indians working for big FOSS-related corpos are now not only lazy but also greedy?Let them die from hunger.
>>108490670enjoy your two month and ten day ban from flathub, fedora,ubuntu and arch's repo
>>108490632How was he right? Whenever he's asked about how people should make money with free software, he gets pissy and has no real answer.
>>108482615>I explicitly wrote into my licensing agreement that anyone can use my work in for-profit projects and YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHAT HAPPENED
>>108482615>Make software on a public license >Complain about the public license being the public licenseSheesh I wonder how this could've been prevented
>>108490864You're talking out of your ass. Absolutely nothing prevents you from selling Free Software.>but muh source code!Free Software only means that the source code must be available to those that own the software (as in, purchase it) the idea that the source code must be publicly available with free to download binaries is open source nonsense designed to give corpos free development.In fact if you modify a Free Software program for your own use (or a company's internal use) the source code doesn't have to be contributed back upstream.>but users of Free Software can share the binaries and the source code if they want to! Checkmate!Users have been sharing Photoshop and Microsoft Office binaries since the 90s and those companies haven't gone under.>but Free Software means you get a ton of bug reports from non-paying costumers!Which can be ignored. You're not forced to give them support.>but Stallman never said any of this!Stallman has been repeating this for 40 years and the open source cult has purposedly obfuscated and misrepresented him to the point retards like you don't actually know what Free Software is all about. There's even a book you can buy (or get for free) from the FSF website about this.
tldr companies want to buy out open source projects and monetize them
>>108490906Ok, you're a fullblown retard. Thanks for the clarification.
basically a dead issue at this pointno matter what your license is, if your code is open source then whoever wants it will just tell claude to copy your project but change it just enough to be legally distinct then copyright it and possibly sue you for infringement going forward
>>108482615Permissive licenses are cuck licenses and only truly viral copyleft licenses like the AGPL are good, since they effectively start dismantling copyright.>>108488625>Precedent is that AI slop can't be licensed, because a human didn't make it>If it's similar enough to copyrighted code, precedent will still favor the copyrighted material over the AI slop
>>108490927>has zero arguments, only name-callingI accept your concession.
>>108490906You're forgetting the most important thing, retards don't understand the code even if they can read it. Code is worthless. Half of /g/ couldn't even compile anything complicated.
Publicly open source is incompatible with the modern internet. All projects should be closed by default with access allowed at the descretion of the admin on a case-by-case basis. That's the only way going forward.
Stallman was right about everything as usual.
What is with the LLM rewriter retarded replies? Just because the US is a compromised failed state doesn't mean it's right.
>>108491746>Stallman was right about everything as usual.jews knowing jews
>>108491756You're not getting your H-1B back. Enjoy spending the rest of your life in India with the rest of your kind.
>>108482615Most of largest FOSS projects are made by corporations. Do you want them all to just leave FOSS and start charging each other like they used to? Wtf
>>108490912When will Linux be bought? What about LLVM? PostgreSQL? React? NodeJS?What exactly are they going to gain? Less contributors?
>>108490906>Absolutely nothing prevents you from selling Free Software.Market prevents you. If you sell your free software but also give it away for free, people ate going to use the free version.>Free Software only means that the source code must be available to those that own the softwareThat's false. If you purchase it, you can share it for free to everyone, starving the original creator of profits.GPL combines the worst aspects for both FOSS and proprietary
>>108491937they would have done it long ago if they saw any money in it. the reason they are for free is because community contributes a large chunk and they do only the rest and act as authority. speaking of authority, they also decide in which direction standards are going, to which competition has to abide.the biggest problem with charging is not the cost, it is the bureaucracy involved which would turn off potential users. oh, you want x $ per developer? then we need to make a new contract every time there is a change in the team (often on a weekly basis).
>>108490632Stallman was wrong.His idea of dichotomy of users and developers is completely backwards.The reality is that cooperation and freedom is very beneficial for everyone, no matter if they are user, developer or a company. Developers often work for companies, users are often developers as well. What encourages most cooperation are permissive licenses that everyone can benefit from. No more weird division and conquer of programming spaces. Nowadays FOSS is more popular than it has ever been, and GPL pays no role in it. It's irrelevant at this point. Everyone, including le evil corporations and pure altruistic hobbyist are contributing to permissive licensed projects because that's the most beneficial thing to do for everyone.
>>108482615open source is great, the future will be free and opensource. windows, excel, photoshop will have open source cross platform free alternatives that are much better. that's how you kill all the software giantsalso its something you can put on your resume and to practice your skills
>>108482615>>108482693>>108482667>>108484164>>108484706>>108485374freetards should just find satisfaction in the little things, and leave the money aspect of it to israel & others
>>108491964>you give it away for freeNo, you don't have to.>you can share itYou could also share Photoshop without issues in the 90s and Adobe didn't die.>>108491994No. Corporations get work for free and don't contribute back money or real work to the community. That's why BSD is still stuck with the same garbage hardware support from 20 years ago. If GNU wasn't UNIX-like BSD wouldn't even have access to modern software.
>>108492263>No, you don't have to.You do. Once someone obtains a copy of the source code, they can share it for free to anyone.>You could also share Photoshop without issues in the 90s and Adobe didn't die.No. If your company would be found using illegal copy of Photoshop it would get sued by Adobe into oblivion. But you can't sue them for using copy of a FOSS program. And these companies are always the biggest clients for software companies like Adobe.>Corporations get work for free and don't contribute back money or real work to the community.Most contributions to largest FOSS projects comes from corporations. Just recently Meta literally gave away all rights to React to some FOSS foundation. How else could a corporatipn contribute more to FOSS than to make a project, share it to everyone for free and then just transfer all the rights to the community?>That's why BSD is still stuck with the same garbage hardware support from 20 years ago. If GNU wasn't UNIX-like BSD wouldn't even have access to modern software.Both BSD and Linux are FOSS. The only difference between the two is that BSD is more permissive, but changing license wouldn't suddenly make hobbyists and corporations jump the ship and move away from Linux. Linux has better support because it is more popular, and it is more popular because it has better support. There is just not enough space for two large FOSS OSes, and Linux won the race. It's more beneficial for everyone to just focus all the efforts on making Linux good.
>>108490864>Whenever he's asked about how people should make money with free software, he gets pissy and has no real answer.because that's completely besides the point of FOSS?
cucked!
>>108486870>>108484623>You can see with Windows 11 what vibe coding gets you.market monopoly?
