@over_clox The lack of redistribution is what's causing projects to disappear and die, vendor lock-in, walled gardens, bricked devices.. you clearly have no idea what you are talking about
@over_clox Which means it's not open-source, silly, because open-source explicitly means you can redistribute it.
@jonuno graphs and numbers, but try to create your favorite solution and then see what it will cost: https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=24.6.0
@poVoq but that analogy would only work if the government was the only customer, footing the whole bill. More appropriate perspective is looking at how much would they pay if they got the same service from say Microsoft, or Slack.
@onlinepersona Are you ok? You wrote that in your book any non-obfuscated code is open-source. But on the internet, any javascript is sent to the browser as text, so as long as the javascript is non-obfuscated (according to your definition), then it fits your statement about being open-source. But that would mean you consider many proprietary codes as being open-source, which is simply wrong. Open-source is a license, it comes with rights and obligations. It can't be just about being readable.
@haui_lemmy Look, I think we all agree that the maintainer financing needs to be improved, but what you are suggesting is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You would remove the whole "F" of the "FOSS" by adding restrictions on the freedoms. So we just need to keep looking, this is not it.
@haui_lemmy That's like saying "I want to fly but without losing touch with the ground" - it is possible, it's just called "walking". If you "don't want someone to make money off of your invention" then that's called "proprietary".
> to advertise your project and reach
so does every open-source project have to follow the venture capitalist road? People who are into open-source are pretty comfortable outside of discord, so it only depends who you want to meet. If you aim at the mainstream masses, and you want to grow as much as possible and as fast as possible (why? planning a business exit?) then sure, discord has more of those. But in that case why open-source anyway? It's anti-thetical.
> We have gotten used to this being ubiquitous and “free as in beer” but it’s not really.
Any big company which cannot bear the costs of publishing code to github can just calculate how much it would have costed them, then send the code to me and I'll upload it to github for them and only ask for half of the price. Seriously, I'll halve your "cost". Because it is actually free and they are just bullshitting.
@ReakDuck Yup, and that's a much better avenue to fight against the AI companies. Because fundamentally, this is almost impossible to avoid in the ML models. We should stop complaining about how they scraped copyrighted content, this complaint won't succeed until that legal loophole is removed. But when they reproduce copyrighted content, that could be fatal. And this applies also to reproducing GPL code samples by copilot for example.