As someone with a footprint in open source, I agree that giving labor for free sets an expectation.
That said, I never had the request to rewrite in a different programming language, yet. Downstream library users as well as package maintainers seem delighted with Python.
I think GitHub sponsors and patreon-like systems can be the way forward. If open source users said "hey, I'll give (10/20/50/whatevers affordable to me now) bucks a month toward open source projects" and then proportion them across projects they choose, that can go forward to things.
But open source is much bigger than projects themselves. One example would be package maintainers on Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Arch, BSD port systems, and so on. They put enough time into it they should be compensated.
I think with these new platforms like GH Sponsors, we're on a trajectory toward fixing this.
> I got a drive-by comment effectively telling me to use a “working” license instead, along with some (what felt like) condescending lecture on how licensing works.
I hope my many drive-by github issues on licenses over the years weren't taken as condescending. I want to avoid the headache in the future of a migration, an example of what it can entail: https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/2054
That's a lot of work.
Worse is the matter of ambiguity with certain licenses. Having something clear and simple that'll work across jurisdictions is a winner.
Wishful thinking or intent doesn't matter when the door is left open for a legal adversary different interpretation of the facts, then having to pay expenses to defend it. That's drama in and of itself, but could also really hurt a business, esp. in early phases.
That said, I never had the request to rewrite in a different programming language, yet. Downstream library users as well as package maintainers seem delighted with Python.
I think GitHub sponsors and patreon-like systems can be the way forward. If open source users said "hey, I'll give (10/20/50/whatevers affordable to me now) bucks a month toward open source projects" and then proportion them across projects they choose, that can go forward to things.
But open source is much bigger than projects themselves. One example would be package maintainers on Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Arch, BSD port systems, and so on. They put enough time into it they should be compensated.
I think with these new platforms like GH Sponsors, we're on a trajectory toward fixing this.
> I got a drive-by comment effectively telling me to use a “working” license instead, along with some (what felt like) condescending lecture on how licensing works.
I hope my many drive-by github issues on licenses over the years weren't taken as condescending. I want to avoid the headache in the future of a migration, an example of what it can entail: https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/2054
That's a lot of work.
Worse is the matter of ambiguity with certain licenses. Having something clear and simple that'll work across jurisdictions is a winner.
Wishful thinking or intent doesn't matter when the door is left open for a legal adversary different interpretation of the facts, then having to pay expenses to defend it. That's drama in and of itself, but could also really hurt a business, esp. in early phases.