can copyleft force corporation to donate ?
bsd is too saint.
gpl or MIT are smart to guard open source.
but, most of normal users have no such money to feed open source.
corporation get so many money , but few return to open source.
why not take some words to force corporation donation in your copyleft?
That might be true when considering monetary contributions, but large corporations like Microsoft contributes a lot of code to open-source.
Copyleft will also have an adverse effect on individual consumers of your projects, especially when the product is a library or other reusable code.
For example, if the Haiku kernel and system libraries one day suddenly become GPL, projects like HyClone, making heavy use of Haiku objects and sometimes source code, may not legally update without being infected by the GPL virus.
No.
If you add a provision to get money you make this non-free software, and it wouldnât be copyleft anymore.
Actually no. Many copyleft projects employing this strategy would be dual licensed under the GPL and a commercial license. The software itself would still be free, despite some derivatives of it not being so.
The losers in this situation is, once again, individual developers seeking to create software under permissive licenses.
why not take open source as a âbecome a shareholderâ?
if corporation use open source, it should return regular donation to community as sorts of dividendă
Because, if you force it to return donations to community, then community has obligations to provide what that corporation needs.
corporation have right to talk about what they need.
but community have right to take the suggestion or not.
because community donât force corporation to use the open source at first.
After they chose to use it , and paid for it, since you forced them, now you have the obligation to deliver what they ask for.
not sell-buy, but âbecome a shareholderâ.
when corporation use the part of open source, it should donate regularly.
when corporation do not use the part of open source, it stop the donation.
community should take the corporationâs words as the same as the normal userâs words.
The question was about copyleft, not about commercial licenses.
This is called selling software. It can be done. You can offer the software for any price to companies. But, sice the software is open source, anyone who buys it or gets it for free, can redistribute it. They can do it cheaper than the original developers (since they only do redistribution, and no development). So, of course, the corporations, which are not stupid, take the cheaper (or free) offer.
Copyleft only makes sure that if someone redistributes the software (for free or paid), they have uo redistribute the sourcecode. Not to everyone, only to the persons they sell or give the software to.
so, copyleft , open source
is it the only way to get money with âmorality donationâ ?
if copyleft or open source can not handle corporation with economic way, they can not be the major of the world.
because, most of people live with corporation.
and corporation only know economy, not morality.
corporationâs morality is only their economic morality.
The more we can reduce our dependence on finance and government, the safer we will be. The safer we are, the safer the Haiku code is. I know that fiat currency is almost as unstable as crypto so donât trust either of them.
I donât think you understand what consent is.
Iâd say crypto is the safer bet, so long as you pick one thatâs reliable. Crypto may be unstable at times, but bitcoin has, overall, increased in value tremendously. Fiat has only depreciated in value during that time. I know what Iâd rather put my money in.
i really think it is unfair for open source developer.
saint donât like money.
but, it is unfair for saint with few money return.
especially corporation get the most of money with open source.
All currency is fiat,even gold. What gives any currency value is the belief in that value by those who use it to trade.
Most haiku developers seem to want to keep haiku a hobby, most users want haiku to be a viable alternative to the growing technocratic autocracy of authoritarianism thatâs pervading every life on earth with privacy invasion, corporate /government collusion cronyism and the looming social credit system.
For a commercially viable alternative, it would require someone with substantial financial resources and social nobility to take haiku into that sphere.
Iâd say start a Elon musk campaign on Twitter, see if heâd throw the requisite philanthropy at the problem, twitter, tesla etc are all tied to linix, and for him that might be a viable alternative to get away from.
But from my many behavioral.observations, most of the haiku dev contributors donât want to turn haik into a job. Itâs a hobby and making it into a job would ruin the enjoyment they get from tinkering.
Haiku needs to fork and users need to step up snd fund it or find a patron to do so.
Peter Theil and Elon Musk would be on my short list of people to try to reach out towards to get the requisite funding.
Not really. If you have a job offer with the same stability as my current one, even at half the pay, I would jump right into it. But, with the current finances of Haiku inc, this is not going to happen. And I donât want to leave a stable job for that uncertainty.
Maybe some of the other devs are not willing to cut their pay in half, but I think at least some of them are otherwise in a similar situation: with families to raise, or other commitments in life, they canât afford to make Haiku a paid job in the current situation because there is simply not enough money or too much uncertainty about how long it would last.
It is a bit of a âdeadlockâ situation: the OS progreses slowly as long as there are no paid developers, and the donations wonât increase if the OS keeps moving slowly. Itâs not really about wanting to keep this as a hobby, but with the current budget ($20000 a year, from which you have to remove a bit because of server hosting fees, etc), there is not much you can do to make this more than a hobby.
Mh, I have to reconsider my post. Definitely not willing towork with outright crazy people like these. What did you say about privacy invasion and technocratic autocracy? Because they are the people running thatâŚ
Actually itâs blackrock , vanguard and a few other hedge funds that own Facebook, Google, tiktok etc
Both musk and thiel are free speech advocates, currently Twitter is the least invasive regarding privacy. Those men are ancaps, theyâre hardly right wingers. If I put them in a political compass from 2010, theyâre essentially minarchists traditional economic libertarians.
Anyway youâd need a patronnl with the means to fund haiku, i wouldnât expect a corporation to do it, unless you can show them a better bottom line than linux/windows etc.
A focused fund raising drive would be helpful. IE specific issues, financial targets, approximate timeline.
Those men are ancaps, theyâre hardly right wingers.
I would call them populists.
privacy
One should understand that autonomy trumps privacy: if one has autonomy he can choose to not cooperate with someone who violates their privacy, but if one depends on someone else, they may have to surrender his privacy.
Big centralized platforms are the worst possible choice for autonomy.
Haiku currently enjoys a lot of autonomy: thereâs no Red Hat to push technical decision onto the OS.