To be honest though, so much of the entire software ecosystem is built on open source software. There is however absolutely no proportionality between the reliance placed upon OSS vs money spent supporting it.
It's really nothing but shameful. As an individual it may seem a hard nut to crack, but I think that supporting one or two things financially is not only quite easy, it should be done because collectively it does make a difference.
Personally, today, I support Mastodon and Gnome Foundation. May soon also extend support to Firefox and Fedora.
If there is a better way to support OSS, let me know!
@nopatience as they list and show curl's license on their screens and in their documentation of course they know about it. They use it. They rely on it. It's just that they don't have to pay so they don't.
How many Open Source projects are you currently funding?
If the answer is zero, you're not taking good care of your business. If you're on the board of a company where that answer is zero, you're not doing your job.
@nopatience True, but I don't think that changes much when it comes to the perception of libcurl just being taken for granted. (Unfortunately!)
And there is the elephant in the room: the license. Since I'm not a developer (I don't even work in IT) I'm only occasionally contributing a few patches here or there to FOSS projects but I'm always a bit puzzled when I encounter a project under a MIT-type license.
@hambier @nopatience switching to GPL would just mean that it would not be used in all those places. It would not make anyone pay. That only works with dual-license setups and that's an entirely separate deal and one I'm not a big fan of, even if it makes good business
So many companies that earn money on open source but gives nothing back.
I often try in companies I work for to advocate that we should either contribute back to open source or donate some to maintainers. Often I'm on the loosing side of the battle.
Some of these companies are part of Automotive Grade Linux (top off my head, Toyota). Does the Linux Foundation, as parent foundation of AGL, contribute financially to Curl?
So that's part of the problem IMO. A Linux Foundation platinum membership costs 500K EUR annually. Some of these companies pay a fee to the LF or similar organizations, yet none of that money goes to fund free and open-source projects.
(Curl has the benefit that it gets to announce itself in some cases; there are typically hundreds or thousands of other F/OSS components in use that don't. All face sustainability concerns.)
@9v1rt 1. curl doesn't "announce itself" 2. these companies use libcurl, it's as "hidden" in the mix as anything else. 3. I don't claim that curl is unique, it just happens to be my baby
Seven years ago I wrote about how a hundred million cars were running curl and as I brought up this blog post in a discussion recently, I came to reflect over how the world might have changed since. Is curl perhaps used in more cars now? Yes it is.
I suspect this may be similar to slide 2, but do you have a list of car companies who've submitted patches or positive support requests? (not just "make it work plz")
Unfortunately this is very common. Software libraries but also things like OpenStreetMap. "Well, it does not cost any money, we'll take this!" Nobody in the companies thinks about the people behind the projects. Literally nobody!
But when there is a critical bug, everybody cries and demands (!) a quick fix from the creators! (log4j anybody?)
If you've got Ford on there, you can probably add Lincoln. Also you've got a bunch of Stellantis brands on there - there's a fair chance they might use the same software in their US brands too (Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram).
If everyone contributed back financially or through supporting patches it’s not like they would even have to give that much each year. Every commercial software project that uses curl giving like 10 bucks a year would have to be upwards of 100 thousand dollars. Enough for maybe 2 developers part time or 1 person full time and any build and test infrastructure they would need.
dumb question: if you want to get paid for major commercial use, why don't you just change the license in the next release? You're making it available for free but you literally don't have to, if you don't want to, right?
isn't this the general case independent of exact industry? Even if excluding "accidental" usage, because someone is using a *nix computer with scripts.
I wish there was an open-source license that had an ‘if you are a company with over $<X> revenue, then you owe <Y>% of it to the project’ type of clause.
Wouldn't that mostly fix the problem? Is there such a license available now? #openSource
[ Addendum: I'm still compelled by this idea. But, here is an important differing point of view: thenewstack.io/open-source-is-… ]
I have to be misunderstanding open-source, thought it just meant the source was openly available for use, modification, and redistribution as long as it is licensed the same. Does the problem have to do with modification & redistribution? I need to learn more.
Introduction Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open source software must comply with the following criteria: 1. Free Redistribution The license shall…
I love open source. I was part of a team that made open source motion control, and many of the 3D printers you can buy today use our ideas (or code, even).
I think one of the hardest parts of open source is how, when you do get sponsored and sell support, the sponsor now essentially gets control over the project, and gets upset if you don’t yield to it. Worse if you have few sponsors.
On a lighter note: thank you for your work and great project!
I think this is wonderful, so thanks for shining a light on it.
Assuming good faith: I wouldn't be surprised if some/most/all of these companies don't even know this fact. Making it visible could be very beneficial. Hopefully for you, but possibly also for the wider FLOSS ecosystem.
Bit sad/surprised to see several suggestions to make the software less/non-free instead of 'anger' towards those companies in their failure to make FLOSS (more) sustainable.
Without naming names, I had an open source partner tell us that while their stuff is used by some of the biggest corporations on the planet, my 100-person company is the only one who has given anything back.
I’m sorry but, as “selfish” and unfair as it may be from these compagnies to benefit from all this free work without ever giving back, isn’t that the whole point of the software license chosen ?
Curl and libcurl are true Open Source/Free Software and meet all definitions as such. It means that you are free to modify and redistribute all contents of the curl distributed archives. You may also freely use curl and libcurl in your commercial projects.
The whole point of those licenses always has been to allow capitalists to profit from the free work of thousands of “free software” enthusiasts, and that’s probably one of the main reasons why so many “big” projects (which are almost all funded by businesses, directly or indirectly) push very permissive licenses as much as they can under the pretext of “freedom”. 😬
While I feel for you and it is clearly unfair that your (excellent) work is used everywhere without much (if any) payment for it, to me it looks like this goes far beyond the “selfishness” of a few big businesses, and is a systemic problem that cannot be solved without questioning capitalism itself, and the fact that the “free software” community accepts and even embraces it so broadly. 😕
𝚜𝚎𝚕𝚎𝚊
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Christoffer S.
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •To be honest though, so much of the entire software ecosystem is built on open source software. There is however absolutely no proportionality between the reliance placed upon OSS vs money spent supporting it.
It's really nothing but shameful. As an individual it may seem a hard nut to crack, but I think that supporting one or two things financially is not only quite easy, it should be done because collectively it does make a difference.
Personally, today, I support Mastodon and Gnome Foundation. May soon also extend support to Firefox and Fedora.
If there is a better way to support OSS, let me know!
hambier
in reply to Christoffer S. • • •daniel:// stenberg://
in reply to hambier • • •Christoffer S.
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •daniel:// stenberg://
in reply to Christoffer S. • • •Troed Sångberg
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Let's light the fires.
linkedin.com/posts/troed_how-m…
@nopatience
How many Open Source projects are you currently funding?
Troed Sångberg (www.linkedin.com)daniel:// stenberg://
in reply to Troed Sångberg • • •hambier
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •@nopatience True, but I don't think that changes much when it comes to the perception of libcurl just being taken for granted. (Unfortunately!)
And there is the elephant in the room: the license. Since I'm not a developer (I don't even work in IT) I'm only occasionally contributing a few patches here or there to FOSS projects but I'm always a bit puzzled when I encounter a project under a MIT-type license.
daniel:// stenberg://
in reply to hambier • • •xyhhx 🔻 (plz hire me)
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Sensitive content
LIB curl? there's your problem
@hambier @nopatience
hisold
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •vaidas
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •daniel:// stenberg://
in reply to vaidas • • •Newk
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •@vaidas
Or ... some of the drivers contacted bagder for support questions. (lol)
Number6
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •@vaidas
So they're using it to update the in-car software?
Olof Haglund
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •So many companies that earn money on open source but gives nothing back.
I often try in companies I work for to advocate that we should either contribute back to open source or donate some to maintainers. Often I'm on the loosing side of the battle.
Kushal Das
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •daniel:// stenberg://
in reply to Kushal Das • • •priryo
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •@kushal
Diego Pino
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •daniel:// stenberg://
in reply to Diego Pino • • •Diego Pino
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Dmian 🇪🇺
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Jörg Weingrill
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Hans Dampf
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •PJ Evans
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •katzenjens
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Dependency
xkcdParigot-Manchot φ
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •ninkosan
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •daniel:// stenberg://
in reply to ninkosan • • •Roland Turner
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •I'll be interested to see your view.
(Curl has the benefit that it gets to announce itself in some cases; there are typically hundreds or thousands of other F/OSS components in use that don't. All face sustainability concerns.)
daniel:// stenberg://
in reply to Roland Turner • • •Roland Turner
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Ah, they're setting the agent string to something other than libcurl's default? How are you determining that specific manufacturers are using it?
I'm definitely aware that it's your baby; interested in how you're thinking about it.
daniel:// stenberg://
in reply to Roland Turner • • •car brands running curl
daniel.haxx.seRoland Turner
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Solinvictus
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Sebastian Bergmann
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Seth Mos
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Andrew Elwell
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •camarillobrillo
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Jia Tan's mom
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •S-Man42
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Unfortunately this is very common. Software libraries but also things like OpenStreetMap. "Well, it does not cost any money, we'll take this!" Nobody in the companies thinks about the people behind the projects. Literally nobody!
But when there is a critical bug, everybody cries and demands (!) a quick fix from the creators! (log4j anybody?)
Mr. Hmpf
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •daniel:// stenberg://
in reply to Mr. Hmpf • • •Patrick Georgi
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •daniel:// stenberg://
in reply to Patrick Georgi • • •mausmalone
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Marius (windsheep)
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •ludiofines
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Kemotep 🔰
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Hakan Bayındır
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •It's tragicomic that I saw this the moment we were talking about the exact issue on HN.
...and I didn't give curl:// as an example, because I thought it'd be different. It's really sad.
RootWyrm 🇺🇦
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Yet another Josh
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Folks, this is why the AGPL is needed.
Using a MIT-like license is what has gotten the parasites grabbing everything for profit, consuming, and giving back absolutely nothing.
They need to be forced to provide changes on deployed computers, or contact you for a custom contract for money.
EJ
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Nemo
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Jaroslav Svoboda
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •daniel:// stenberg://
in reply to Jaroslav Svoboda • • •Juan Per¢ent,🇲🇽 🍉
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Datawuppi
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Even if excluding "accidental" usage, because someone is using a *nix computer with scripts.
Number6
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •What do they use it for, and how do you know that they're using it? I mean, do you track?
Do the companies officially use it, or is it just some guy in IT ?
I worked for a company once where it was hard to get the bosses to license-up for products that were at the core of our development.
xyhhx 🔻 (plz hire me)
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Sensitive content
Ethan Black
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •I wish there was an open-source license that had an ‘if you are a company with over $<X> revenue, then you owe <Y>% of it to the project’ type of clause.
Wouldn't that mostly fix the problem? Is there such a license available now? #openSource
[ Addendum: I'm still compelled by this idea. But, here is an important differing point of view: thenewstack.io/open-source-is-… ]
Open Source Is Worth Defending - The New Stack
Dan Lorenc (The New Stack)daniel:// stenberg://
in reply to Ethan Black • • •Ethan Black
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •daniel:// stenberg://
in reply to Ethan Black • • •The Open Source Definition
Open Source InitiativeAlex
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Tinkerings
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •I love open source. I was part of a team that made open source motion control, and many of the 3D printers you can buy today use our ideas (or code, even).
I think one of the hardest parts of open source is how, when you do get sponsored and sell support, the sponsor now essentially gets control over the project, and gets upset if you don’t yield to it. Worse if you have few sponsors.
On a lighter note: thank you for your work and great project!
Stephanie
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Free Pietje 🇵🇸 🍉
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •I think this is wonderful, so thanks for shining a light on it.
Assuming good faith: I wouldn't be surprised if some/most/all of these companies don't even know this fact. Making it visible could be very beneficial. Hopefully for you, but possibly also for the wider FLOSS ecosystem.
Bit sad/surprised to see several suggestions to make the software less/non-free instead of 'anger' towards those companies in their failure to make FLOSS (more) sustainable.
rk: it’s hyphen-minus actually
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Leonard Ritter
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Helix
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Milcom Miasma
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Funny how car manufacturers never believe in socialism except when they need a bail-out or free software. 🙄 🙄 🙄
Someday I hope we tire of being played for suckers again and again.
Andrew Haining
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Wilfried Klaebe
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •ChristianMichaelis
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •mercedes-benz-foss-manifesto/mercedes-benz-foss-manifesto_de.md at main · mercedes-benz/mercedes-benz-foss-manifesto
GitHubCounterPillow
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •Michal
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •SoNick_RND
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •strategic partnership between Renault Group, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. and Mitsubishi Motors Corporation
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Jor ☝️😐
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •I’m sorry but, as “selfish” and unfair as it may be from these compagnies to benefit from all this free work without ever giving back, isn’t that the whole point of the software license chosen ?
I mean, the Curl website explicitly states that:
The whole point of those licenses always has been to allow capitalists to profit from the free work of thousands of “free software” enthusiasts, and that’s probably one of the main reasons why so many “big” projects (which are almost all funded by businesses, directly or indirectly) push very permissive licenses as much as they can under the pretext of “freedom”. 😬
While I feel for you and it is clearly unfair that your (excellent) work is used everywhere without much (if any) payment for it, to me it looks like this goes far beyond the “selfishness” of a few big businesses, and is a systemic problem that cannot be solved without questioning capitalism itself, and the fact that the “free software” community accepts and even embraces it so broadly. 😕
curl - copyright
curl.sedaniel:// stenberg://
in reply to Jor ☝️😐 • • •mariuz
in reply to daniel:// stenberg:// • • •daniel:// stenberg://
in reply to mariuz • • •