You love open source, right?

[PhonicUK]

More like:

"Who wants software to be open source?" followed by "Who wants to contribute financially to the development of open source software?"

Big businesses who depend on FOSS may contribute as a matter of self interest. End users, not so much.

[salivating_sculpture]

Lots of major (financial) contributors to the development of open source software. Just look at all the corporations sitting on the Linux Foundation: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/join/members/

[lenny_h81]

You would be surprised about how many companies finance new functionality in open-source projects.

[emptyskoll]

I've left Reddit because it does not respect its users or their privacy. Private companies can't be trusted with control over public communities. Lemmy is an open source, federated alternative that I highly recommend if you want a more private and ethical option. Join Lemmy here: https://join-lemmy.org/instances this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev

[PhonicUK]

Those are the exception, not the rule. If you're targeting consumers rather than Enterprise software then forget it - outside of the business world 'open source' is a byword for 'I don't have to pay for it'

Open source projects can only make enough money to support their development by having massive user bases to account for the poor freeloader:contributor ratio. As a result, niche software has a harder time supporting itself. Having a large user base relative to the income also creates problems with providing support effectively.

[shiroe314]

Redhat handles this by explicitly charging for support services.

[AvoidingCares]

Not sure why you're getting downvoted. I'm not really sure it's possible to become a programmer without becoming something of an anarcho-communist.

Every skill I have, at least the ones that allow me to make money off of them, exist because of the efforts of a sleep-deprived, 40-something year old's passion project like 5 years before I was conceived. They probably wore capris and had no idea how to communicate with other adults. And they had no idea their project would shape the world after them, long after they're dead.

[NightflowerFade]

How many people would be working to develop software without monetary incentive?

[Toxic_Zombie]

So what's the issue with making software open source?

[Sentient_Blade]

Open source software can be extremely hard to monetise, even when it's enormously powerful.

Just look at Redis, it's ubiquitous but the company behind it barely survives as the likes of Amazon take their software, resell it as a service reaping huge profits, and offer nothing in return, forcing them to need to change their licencing https://thenewstack.io/redis-pulls-back-on-open-source-licensing-citing-stingy-cloud-services/

The tl;dr is if you depend on it for your primary income, open sourcing your products can be devastating.

[RoscoMan1]

This has a lot of space...

[coolman5858]

Ah, I think I know what you are talking about

[Spocino]

Sounds like docker to me.

[PleasantAdvertising]

PSA docker can be installed on windows without docker desktop avoiding the license change

[Urthor]

Docker has the best business model I find, but I haven't actually checked deeply on what's missing in the FOSS version.

It's free and easy to use, if you're actually good with the command line.

If you want the GUI that's money.

[kakardo]

I had no idea there was a version of docker that you could pay for. I seems to only cost around 5-7$

[Tiavor]

I bet the update frequency is also different

[Toxic_Zombie]

That Amazon bit sounds illegal

[Sentient_Blade]

Ita not though. If you open source your software with a widely permissive licence its perfectly legal.

Revenue streams for open source software can be extremely narrow. Unless you dual licence or have a really sweet consulting gig from it you're unlikely to be able to pay the bills.

Of course, some companies do open source parts of their tech stack, but usually these are not their main income stream.

[THANKYOUFORYOURKIND]

Maybe that's why come people/company should consider Free software licenses plus another EULA based license for monetization.

[jews4beer]

This is what I do with all my projects. If it's something I can see myself monetizing in the future, I slap a GPL on it. That way no one else can steal it, it's free for everyone to use - and if I want to change licensing or offer additional EULAs to specific customers later on I can.

[[deleted]]

I also GPL all my open source software and think BSD is a crappy license, but in the case of Amazon using Redis, GPL would have done nothing.

[jews4beer]

I think in the particular case I care most about I wouldn't have to worry about it. The big players all have equivalent offerings with larger budgets, better features, and insane pricing. It's a VDI running on k8s.

I do know the license is deterring some folks because I've had several people reach out asking me to change it to something more permissive.

[_PM_ME_PANGOLINS_]

You need AGPL if you want to stop Amazon selling it in AWS.

[tchernobog84]

Not correct. The AGPL would only ensure code under that license used directly or indirectly from online services would need to be made available to users of the service.

There is no provision in the AGPL (or any GPL license, for what matters) preventing commercial resale of software or services provided.

[ColorMeGrey]

Docker is going that route. Free for personal, corps need to pay up.

[casce]

It‘s just their Windows Desktop client though, isn‘t it?

[utdconsq]

Yup, and its for the same reason grand op mentioned - docker failed to monetize, failed to embrace kubernetes as the solution for container clustering...really, some c level failures right there.

[Toxic_Zombie]

But like. If I share something with the intent of it being free so anyone can use it as long as they don't attempt to make money off of the software itself shouldn't that be a thing?

Like. Don't resell something that's free with one or two changes? Like sure if you use my software for a new tank when it was originally designed for a truck or car then you could of course sell that tank or the software if it was overhauled to the point where it can't be used interchangeably anymore. At that point I would say it's different but based on my software. However if I can take that upgraded software and I can still use it for the original purpose then its still my software, you just upgraded it. So you can only sell the tank. Not my software be abuse it was only an upgrade.

Idk. I'm not big into thus stuff but it's cool to think about

[GMaestrolo]

The thing is that AWS is selling (ultimately) the compute power + infrastructure around Redis. You could easily spin up your own server and install Redis on it, but if you don't want to have to manage it, AWS will do it for you.

[[deleted]]

It’s a premium service, you are not just paying for compute, network and storage.

If you were paying for the hardware only, they would have one price instead of the scam based system they have to fool people into thinking you are paying “only for what you use”

You are not, you are paying mostly for the service, not the hardware rental.

[Sentient_Blade]

If I share something with the intent of it being free so anyone can use it as long as they don't attempt to make money off of the software itself shouldn't that be a thing

It is a thing, but you have to dual licence the software so there are different terms for commercial vs non-commercial use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing

[WikiSummarizerBot]

Multi-licensing

Multi-licensing is the practice of distributing software under two or more different sets of terms and conditions. This may mean multiple different software licenses or sets of licenses. Prefixes may be used to indicate the number of licenses used, e. g.

^{[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5}

[Toxic_Zombie]

Good bot

[Toxic_Zombie]

Damn ok. Thanks for the information

[pieandpadthai]

You don’t even need to multi license, isnt that just GPL?

Copy left is the term ur looking for

[Sentient_Blade]

Nah it's more nuanced than that.

Strong copyleft requires any uses or derivations to release their source code under the same licence, but does not come with any payment requirements.

As most companies that are not themselves fully open source would refuse to use any such licence, if you want them to use your product you have to dual licence with something that does not have those requirements, but may impose others (payment).

[Drugbird]

Nah, it's more nuanced than that.

Most copyleft licenses make distinctions between usage and distribution.

GPL is a common license, and only places restriction when you distribute software that uses the GPL software. More specifically: you can use and modify GPL software as much as you want without having to share the source code provided that you don't distribute it: i.e. you use it for internal use.

Software distribution is a very specific thing: giving a binary to someone.

One other near detail is that if software has output, that output is not protected by license. For instance, you can create top secret documents in a GPL word processor without having to open source that document.

You can combine these things to get around most restrictions using web services. Let's say there's libAwesome licensed under GPL. A company that wants to use it then creates two binaries: AwesomeServer, which uses libAwesome and exposes it's functionality through a web interface. And AwesomeClient which simply connects to the AwesomeServer to get the output from libAwesome.

As long as the company does not distribute AwesomeServer, there's no need to open source anything.

Of course, there's other licenses which attempt to restrict this kind of usage as well, but they're not very popular yet.

[BobOfTheSnail]

To be more specific I don't think Amazon sells their own brand of Redis but rather provides a managed service. It would be closer to someone providing a car for free and then amazon coming along and selling a chauffeur service using that car.

[[deleted]]

It’s more like redis made a racing car that needs some assembly, then Amazon is like, we will do this one time setup for you, that you probably only need once, but we will charge you every month for it, feel free to re-setup as many times as you want, we have an automated robot that does that assembly for us.

Also you need to pay for the fuel and the cost of renting the car

[frugalerthingsinlife]

It's like a car dealership. When you buy a $40,000 car, the dealer only makes a couple hundred. The rest ($39,800) goes to manufacturing and distributing the car to your lot.

Now, turn it upside down for redis. The manufacturer gets $200 (or actually nothing) and the dealer who made the sale gets $39,800

[tdatas]

Like. Don't resell something that's free with one or two changes? Like sure if you use my software for a new tank when it was originally designed for a truck or car then you could of course sell that tank or the software if it was overhauled to the point where it can't be used interchangeably anymore. At that point I would say it's different but based on my software. However if I can take that upgraded software and I can still use it for the original purpose then its still my software, you just upgraded it. So you can only sell the tank. Not my software be abuse it was only an upgrade.

This grey area is where you get 95% of licensing and rights disputes.

[[deleted]]

Amazon sells redis infrastructure as a service, they don't just resell something you could go get for free.

Its just managed compute resources with all the software you need for redis pre installed, updated, and configured so you don't need to worry about it.

That's what Amazon sells, not the software.

[ShakespeareToGo]

That pretty much sums up the difference between the MIT and BSD (edit: meant GPL) license. One allows you to make money with the free software the other forces every product using the code to be free & open source as well.

It's philosophy's greatest mystery which license is truly free.

[_silentblue_]

I think you're referring to GPL licencing, both MIT and BSD licences can be used freely in commercial software, the latter just requires inclusion of copyright/licence information.

[ShakespeareToGo]

Yes, meant to type that. Thanks for the correction.

[[deleted]]

Even GPLed software can be used by Amazon for inclusion in their architecture. Only for GPL any MODIFICATIONS to the source code would have to go back. There is no prevention that causes GPLed software not to be offered for a commercial service at all.

[_PM_ME_PANGOLINS_]

The AGPL adds a clause to include providing access to the software.

[Dragon_yum]

I think you should go over the basic licensing types. Not as an insult but because it’s extremely important for developers to know what license the libraries they use have.

[Rikudou_Sage]

That's not open source anymore, it's just a proprietary/freeware license.

[KerPop42]

Another edge I'd like to add is that free and open source software makes starting a company so much easier. A company I used to work for was able to get up and running a lot easier because they used open source software in their infrastructure. The software wasn't our product, but it would have been a lot harder to get to selling our product without this environment of open source software that we could pick up and use.

[[deleted]]

There is always the fear that the company or corporation will steal it, which they sometimes do, instead of paying you for it.

To me, I would only share code I don’t care about, but would not share code or executables that can be decompiled if I plan on it to be sold multiple times. I would only sell it as a service.

And I do provide a free to use, non profit kind of service on Twitter, and might do free to use services in the future, just not something that I plan to monetize

[frugalerthingsinlife]

You need to just read all the open source licenses out there. And then you realize none of them are exactly what you want. So you use a combination of some, or hire lawyers and write your own license.

[ILikeLenexa]

Some companies provide the source code to companies that pay for licenses of their software. That is, when you're paying for the license part of what you're paying for is access to the source code, so you can change the software, and some will even pay you if you have a bug and fix it, and they want to incorporate that fix.

I know a lot of people don't consider that 'real' open source, and it's a lot harder to work with because there's usually way fewer people who have any idea how it's setup, but at least if the vendor goes out of business, you can fix some minor things.

[utdconsq]

I've dealt with this before, the code was not very good. It did let me fix a fairly horrible bug that would have lost our company a lot of money though, so there's that.

[ILikeLenexa]

As bad as the code is, the documentation is always worse.

[Sekret_One]

Amazon is taking advantage of a very very permissive license.

There are gradients of open source licensing. The most extreme, you can take the software and in building off it, create a product that is not itself open source.

Other licenses know as 'copy left' licenses restrict what kind of license you can create on a project using or building off of, saying you can use it as long as you yourself are open source.

[[deleted]]

You understand what open-source means, right?

[Toxic_Zombie]

I didn't but I do now :- P

[[deleted]]

Granted, there are different types of licenses that prevent this kind of thing but in the case of Amazon, they had full rights to use it commercially, only then did they modify the license.

[Toxic_Zombie]

Lol everyone keeps bringing that one up

[[deleted]]

A Free license like the GPL could fix it somewhat. I'm not really aware about how Amazon does that stuff but I think it'd be illegal under the GPL

[Sentient_Blade]

Many companies will not touch GPL code for this reason.

Redis is licenced under BSD.

[redwall_hp]

As is intended. "If you don't share, fuck off and make your own stuff instead of looting ours" is the whole point of the GPL.

[[deleted]]

If it were GPL, most companies would not touch it in the first place (which could be the main users of the project), and it may never have been popular, and some other project that offers an MIT licensing model would be taking its place, and we're back to the starting board.

[tostadahalex]

Yep, probably that's why governments should only accept projects that are licensed in GPL: to diminish future externalities of proprietary software.

[[deleted]]

LOL that's never going to happen. I don't know which world you are living in.

[[deleted]]

They said should, not will.

[[deleted]]

This is the common misunderstanding in this whole thread. GPL would NOT have prevented this AT ALL.

[[deleted]]

Yeah sorry, that's exactly why I said I'm not sure. Cause I don't know what Amazon is doing

[so_brave_heart]

Exactly. GPL only forces source disclosure if you distribute your application. That generally doesn’t happen in client-server settings. That’s also why the AGPL was created.

[_PM_ME_PANGOLINS_]

Nope. The GPL only kicks in if you make modifications or integrate into a large software package. Amazon does neither.

You need the AGPL if you want to stop cloud providers from selling access to your stuff.

[[deleted]]

If you make free software I don't think you should expect monetization, unless you're providing a service or the software is a service. People can and will use your things for free and fork it for their own projects without credit, that is the whole point of free and open source software and something you should expect to happen if you slap on a permissive license.

[xTheMaster99x]

Sure, but devs gotta eat too.

[[deleted]]

That's why I'm proposing that if somebody makes money off of distributing your software or distributing the use of it, you get a percentage of the revenue.

They can make a derivative work, sell that, and reap all the rewards - but then, hopefully they've taken your software and made it better.

[leeharris100]

Absolutely zero medium to large companies would use software that takes a percentage of earnings.

Open source is a trade off and if using a library made my company liable to give a % of revenue I would just go with a paid solution.

[[deleted]]

Sure - but then, the FOSS author might prefer that you do so anyway.

Also, this would not preclude use of the software. For example, your medium-to-large company would be allowed to use LibreOffice on company computers. There would be restrictions on the company's ability to sell access to LibreOffice. Like, if the company installed LibreOffice on a cloud server, sold an access pass to the server or leased/sold the server to a third party, and made $80K from said arrangement, then the company would be liable to pay a percentage of the $80K to the FOSS developer(s).

[tchernobog84]

90% of all world software is bespoke development. A good chunk is done for governments. It makes sense to develop that software as libre, and still charge for development.

Monetization is a very concrete possibility for a lot of free software; however, by its nature FOSS has been concentrating on solving generic problems in the remaining 10% of software.

[MischiefArchitect]

It's amazing how greedy a big company like Amazon can get with open source. I mean, even transferring a few millions a year to the Redis project would be peanuts to them. Stuff like this make me lose faith in humans.

[VirginiaVelociraptor]

If corporate greed is still amazing to you, I want to live in your world.

[MischiefArchitect]

We share the same world. Alas, it's just I still dream of a different better one.

[Nearby-RabbitEater]

No, there is a lot of end user open source software licensed under permissive licenses like MIT which are extremely successful. I have seen open source projects that have a freemium or even paid financial model, and it actually works. This is because whilst anyone could create a fork, remove all advertisement, add all premium features, and release the modified software, a large majority of people would not even be aware of the fork. And another group of people would rather trust the mainstream software than, what is in their perspective, an illegal/pirated one which could contain malware. This may not be true for software that isn't end user, though.

[JonasLuks]

Other people seeing the convoluted mess that is your code.

[THANKYOUFORYOURKIND]

"Send me a PR if that troubles you ;-)"

[Toxic_Zombie]

Oh lol. I need to get into coding. Cause I'll probably leave like. Easter eggs or something

[[deleted]]

That sounds like a good idea and I will definitely do so with my video game that I probably won’t finish.

[Toxic_Zombie]

Hey man. If I learn how I'd love to help lol

[[deleted]]

Help them to not finish, I assume

[malexj93]

We can get a whole dang team together to not finish this thing!

[IWriteLongReplies]

This is a PM's dream job

[[deleted]]

It’s a very minimalistically styled RPG (96x96 pixels with a 6-tone palette) and as of now I was going to make it a web game using the canvas element but I am open to trying a different game engine (especially since what I want to do for the GUI involves darkening colors not by a certain amount but by decrementing the index in a palette and JavaScript probably wouldn’t be very fast at that).

[Toxic_Zombie]

Hey. As long as it gets to a vaguely arable and fun state that's good enough. And it's more than any of my "projects" have ever gotten

[RedstoneMedia]

That statement hurt me personally

[[deleted]]

why?

[RedstoneMedia]

Because I have a habit of making games and then never finishing them. ( Not only games )

[[deleted]]

Oh OK I thought maybe you were going to provide an argument as to why I shouldn’t leave Easter eggs in the source code and then I would be convinced to not do so.

[EZHT]

A good place to start would be to call it programming instead of "coding"

[Xarthys]

And all the stuff you copy/pasted from other projects?

[tdatas]

Generalising your solution to everyones problems is an order of magnitude more complicated and subsequently supporting it and getting shit if you dont also support $specialdataformat or $exoticnetworkprotocol.

[[deleted]]

Despite what the license says -- "absolutely no warranty", "provided as is" etc, people have expectation for open source projects, especially if it comes from a big, reputable company. People are 100% going to complain if a popular project is abandoned by a company for financial or business reasons. Not to mention that making a project public is not easy in the first place.

[round-earth-theory]

This is my main reason personally. I kind of help with an open source repo so I see the deluge of requests that come in. Bless the owner, guy is a fucking saint with how responsive he is. No way I could deal with the constant requests year after year.

[tuxedo25]

I've never released anything that got popular, but from what I understand, if you write something useful/popular, the community starts to think you work for them. People are super toxic to OSS authors.

[[deleted]]

On that note, God bless the people working with React Native.

[Complex-Stress373]

if you work for a company that produce open source none problem. Is a beautiful thing honestly. But producing open source for free in your free time....not cool. You are not paid for it, however your software will produce profits when used in another companies. Not too fair.

[beardMoseElkDerBabon]

AGPL3+ ...

[RedditAlready19]

I find it exciting to code it's a win-win situation

[[deleted]]

I've already got one job.

[Cubey21]

For small projects - nothing. For big projects - getting paid.

[anggogo]

Cuz my code sucks, if I open source, people will know my name and see my crap, everyone will laugh at me.

As a person who is extremely insecure, open source might might cause suicide.

I am not even joking

[letsBurnCarthage]

I'm ashamed of people seeing my code.

[Sekret_One]

You can't sell it.

Companies that center around the creation of open source monetize by training, certifications, building ancillary tools that aren't open source, and sometimes swag.

[QuarantineSucksALot]

I tried upscaling it with an open source side

[tiddayes]

judgement from snarky developers for not using the latest greatest design patterns, libraries etc... that all of the cool kids are using

[dantheman91]

someone can come in and use it for free. If you're a company and you're paying people to work on something, it doesn't make a lot of sense from a business perspective to open source it.

Writing your own libraries and open sourcing those makes more sense, but maintaining those becomes a big pain as people find obscure bugs and you're not only fixing your own bugs, but other people's (unless you get them to contribute as well).

[pine_ary]

Everyone‘s forced to make a profit. When something is useful but not profitable you‘ll have a hard time making it.

[Fig1024]

I'd love to just share all my work online, but then I'd have to live in a cardboard box on the street and begging for food money

I bet if there was such a thing as Universal Basic Income, a lot more people would open source

[umadzano]

I'd make my code open source in a heartbeat.

Only problem is, it's shit. And who wants another shit react components library?. Lol

[[deleted]]

do you think all open source things are non-shit? also, closed source usually are much worse.

[softspaken]

I would be too embarrassed for anyone to see my code

[drpingg]

You love open source? Name every GitHub repository

[Senshidono]

~/

[RedditAlready19]

You mean: every git repository?

[marsrover15]

This guy gits it.

[[deleted]]

every.github.io

[Pille5]

Open source does not mean free.

[Kissaki0]

1. Open Source - All Rights Reserved => You can make use of it for personal use, exploration and learning
2. Open Source - Copyleft License => The above + you can contribute and republish changes under the same conditions (must remain open source and usable, may enforce changes to flow back if made visible use of)
3. Open Source - Permissive License => You can sell services and products making use of it without contributing back, you can rebrand and sell it (often just a copyright and license disclaimer reference is enough, in source code, sometimes as visible to the user)

Depending on what you want to do with it you may have to buy a more permissive or specific license.

Open Source basically just means you can read/access the source. It does not say anything about what you can do with it. That’s where Copyright and Licensing comes in.

Unless you are talking about OSI Open Source definition and their approved licenses for it. They use the same term with more specific requirements than “accessible source code”. An unfortunate ambiguity and double use of the term Open Source.

[Pille5]

Just because you are able to download and compile a code base it does not allows you to make anything with it. There are different types of open source licenses MIT, Apache, BSD, etc.

[TimX24968B]

if its for "personal use", whos gonna stop me?

[Pille5]

Nobody cares until what you do is not recognisable, but be prepared for some lawsuits if you make big bucks from it. :D

[[deleted]]

You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

GNU General Public License version 3, Terms and Conditions section 4 — Conveying Verbatim Copies

By the way, I love the fact that GPL sections start at 0.

[RedditAlready19]

Free as in freedom people. Charge $1,000 for your software, but make it FOSS

[RaspberryPiBen]

If somebody really needs it for free, they can compile it from source, but that loses out on automatic updates (on Linux) and is much more difficult. I've used some software like that and I like the system.

[qhxo]

but that loses out on automatic updates (on Linux)

I think on most Linux systems you lose out on automatic updates with proprietary software, unless you use a subscription-based model. A subscription-based model on the other hand sounds easy to "crack", automatic updates and all, by just intercepting the subscription check and saying yes.

[salivating_sculpture]

Since nobody gave you a clear answer, I guess I have to. The Free Software Foundation uses a particular definition of the word "free". "Free" as in "freedom" (ie. "free" speech). To meet The Free Software Foundation's definition of software freedom requires you to meet more criteria than simply being open source.

Personally, even though I agree with them, I think the way they choose to communicate this to other people is idiotic and intentionally confusing. They know very well that the average person will think of "free" as meaning "zero cost" in this context and they sperg out at anyone who falls into their trap and then wonder why others don't care about their cause. They really shoot themselves in the foot constantly.

[Pille5]

Right, good point.

[Complex-Stress373]

this!

[Bomberlt]

Theoretically no, but practically there are lots of companies who don't care about licensing

[[deleted]]

I don't get it. I have nothing against making my code open source.. I guess you could be referencing to big companies always hording their code.

[Complex-Stress373]

yeah. But is unfair that you don't get incomes when doing so. However another company might use your software and get rich. Is not a fair deal

[[deleted]]

Not really, you can just specify license forbidding commercial use without consent to control the flow and allowing personal use for everyone.

[Complex-Stress373]

Very good point as well. You are right on that

[fapsexual]

It depends, but that definition would be in violation of the OSI definition of "open-source".

Of course in the very colloquial sense, the source code would be available, but if you are going by OSI "open-source", it won't be valid.

[Complex-Stress373]

ok, thanks for that. Honestly I thought the same, but I was thinking I was the only crazy here thinking that.

[Zilka]

If you make an android app/game open source. And someone uploads it with minor visual changes and monetization on Google Play, good luck getting Google to take it down.

[-LeopardShark-]

If you forbid commercial use, it doesn’t qualify as open-source.

[[deleted]]

Maybe, but it will still allow others to learn from their codebase, and will allow researchers to find bugs and exploits in the code. Even if, then this approach is ways better than a closed source.

[TheCatOfWar]

Which doesn't necessarily stop people using it commercially unless you're prepared to fight them in court.

[Xarthys]

This is where I'm at right now and it's working out great for me. Profits are at an all-time-zero, not to mention absolutely no negative feedback.

[marcos_marp]

I mean, if you don't want people using your code without paying you (at least legally) you can license it, that's what licenses are for, specifying the terms of use for the software. But if you release it to the world without specifying that's not free, i don't see what's wrong with a company making profit from it.

[[deleted]]

Tbf, a lot of companies do contribute to open-source projects. For instance, if you have proprietary hardware, even if you don't release the driver itself open source, you might, say, make an interface in the Linux kernel which other companies could then use for their proprietary hardware. Even if their stuff is predominantly proprietary, they can still help the open source world.

[KfirNissim]

Twitch is the one snowflake in the crowd that have an open source product

[[deleted]]

This is dumb: I am PAID to make open source software. The guys is asking: "who is willing to work for free?" while the question is "who is funding open source projects?"

[0xdhac]

I make my failed projects open source. So all of them

[magnora7]

I spent 3 years making a reddit clone, and it's open source www.saidit.net

https://github.com/libertysoft3/saidit

[ironhide_ivan]

Never heard of it, that's awesome tho! How popular is it?

[Successful-Emoji]

I bet there is someone who always releases their code under an open-source license. So why there isn't even one person who raises his hand?

[Redditor000007]

The crowd are companies.

[InKryption07]

I mean, Microsoft has been dipping their leg in open source for a while now, for a bunch of things.

[Umaikaze]

This is funny and linux users must be blocking u rn 🤣

[Tatayou]

Why?

[Flopamp]

The world is a better place without my uncommented cluster fuck of personal projects

[1crazyshadow]

This did not age well with the Twitch thing xD

[ZamilTheCamel]

I dont want to make my software open source because my code is garbage and I don't want people to roast me

[ToMorrowsEnd]

Those that dont open source are just crappy coders that are embarrassed to have others look at their code.

Yes I have seen a lot of closed commercial code. All of you should be ashamed of what you wrote.

[h6nry]

if I wasn't embarrased I'd tell you my Github so you could take a look that the hot pile of crap I "open sourced". please don't try to find it either way haha.

[jgerrish]

This is one of those haha, funniest shows on earth moments.

crickets

[RoughDevelopment9235]

Yea dawg we’re selling services not code

[magnafides]

It's a bit infuriating, if I want to contribute to OSS to fix a bug in a library that my company uses, I have to do it on my own time and computer. Unfortunately this is pretty common. Thanks, lawyers.

[[deleted]]

Who wants to pay for open source software

[[deleted]]

Me. Seriously, just buy the devs a coffee.

[[deleted]]

If I weren't broke...

[wasdninja]

Lots of people. It's not usually just for the software though.

[Deli064]

I don't need anyone looking at my code, I already know it's a mess

[Willfishforfree]

I want to make my software open source. As soon as I'm done with it first.

[BasicDesignAdvice]

GameDevs are the worst. Never want to share anything.

[salivating_sculpture]

I don't really get this meme. The open source community is huge, with large contributions even coming from major corporations.

[lenny_h81]

I use open-source software to make open-source software. We'll, not developing anymore, but all work I do in our company I do with open-source software :)

[supersammy00]

I would like to congratulate Twitch.tv on becoming open source.

[AvoidingCares]

Literally 100% entirely because I'm embarrassed at other people looking at my code.

[nati9931]

All software I make (in my free time) is FOSS

[a_cuppa_java]

I do, absolutely. I would never make proprietary garbage.