• 2 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: March 20th, 2021

help-circle











  • I am happier when I see copyleft but let’s be honest, I would contribute to an interesting, useful project regardless of their choice between MIT and GPL. Same for companies: some prefer MIT, but there is no way they are not going to contribute to the Linux Kernel just because of copyleft. So bottom line is: make something that people enjoy/find useful and see contributors flocking.

    CLAs are a different matter: I do not contribute to projects which ask you to assign them copyright unless I 100% trust the organisation behind them.


  • As a contributor, I never particularly cared about permissions if I participate in a project with a few patches. It becomes useful when you are diagnosing a CI problem, etc. and you need to push a lot of tweaks to discover where the bug is located.

    More generally, treat contributors like you want to be treated. Try to be responsive, compassionate, guide them through the process of having a PR merged, be ready to fix a minor mess or two, congratulate them on a job well done.

    Open development is as much a story of people as a story of code.


  • Customization for big enterprises is actually a viable business model, only if it generates as much money as the company sustains and can continue to expand?

    Yes, it is only a viable business model in the end if it generates enugh revenues to cover materials and labour, like every business on planet Earth.


  • fafff@lemmy.mltoOpen Source@lemmy.ml*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I am sorry to say some of what you write is not correct.

    Red Hat — I know they had their slice of controversies lately, but still — is a ≃33bn USD company, how is that not making money? They sell solutions based on OSS (different from selling software!), which is one viable way of making money.

    Other ways are: selling support, selling licence exceptions (when you are the sole copyright holder of the codebase, MySQL did that), sponsored development for new features, SaaS (bad!), customization for big enterprises/public actors, open-sourcing software but keeping assets proprietary (some games do that), and many more.


  • I feel one of the most important things for a thriving open source project is easy onboarding.

    Statement of friendliness and similar are not that useful if I don’t know where to start to contribute to your project. A clean, up to date CONTRIBUTING file goes a long way, architecture documentation is extremely good, optimal is having an experience developer checking your patches and offering help.

    Repositories that I contribute to the most helped me in the first phases of the journey, it was awesome, I gave back.





  • If some code links to your GPL library, the whole project has to be licenced GPLv3, full stop. This does not “prevent people to use [it] at all”, it just stipulates that they have to make the source available and the source of improvements they make available. Each substantial library I write in my free time is GPLv3. I want to contribute to the ecosystem and I want everyone enjoying my work contributing back to the ecosystem.

    A similar licence, called LGPL, allows dynamic linking without having to make the code of the whole project available, just the code of the specific library + improvements. If for some reason you need this, I invite you to check how dynamic linking works in Pharo and read this FAQ by the FSF (and all other FAQs, it is a very clear, informative document).