"If you want to get paid, then create proprietary software and sell it, if you can. Nothing wrong with doig it.
But if you are developing something you call open source software and you use GNU/Linux for it, then how much money should GNU and Linus get for you doing that? You could go with Windows insteand and pay the licensing fee."
The problem with these discussions is they always set up this false comparison. Then, what's going on looks hypocritical. Here's what actually happened:
1. Linus et al released Linux with a license that says, "Pay us nothing. Just give back any changes in code you distribute." That's their goal. Those with permissive licenses said "Use it and don't share anything unless you want to." That's their goal per the license agreement.
2. Cockroach Labs started with a goal of making a huge pile of profit on a database whose core they keep as free and OSS as possible. The profit takes priority due to VC funding. That's their goals.
Cockroach making profit on Linus et al's work without paying them isn't hypocritical since their license's actual goal was to do that. Whereas, the SaaS vendors are posing a challenge for Cockroach achieving their goals which require making money off their activities. Balancing giving code out as OSS and profit-seeking, they lightly-modified a license that starts as proprietary but goes Apache after 3 years. Personally, I think they're being way, way, too altruistic given what rate of return they're expected to come up with.
If anything, people that wrote their dependencies using freeloader-loving licenses are either achieving their goal of commercial uptake or need to pick a license that incentivizes their goals (or just blocks things they hate). If contributors, probably should contribute to software with strongest copyleft available. AGPL and Parity come to mind. Folks using licenses that don't require payment shouldn't expect payment. If folks want payment, then they should sell the software somehow with licenses worded to bring in revenue.
The problem with these discussions is they always set up this false comparison. Then, what's going on looks hypocritical. Here's what actually happened:
1. Linus et al released Linux with a license that says, "Pay us nothing. Just give back any changes in code you distribute." That's their goal. Those with permissive licenses said "Use it and don't share anything unless you want to." That's their goal per the license agreement.
2. Cockroach Labs started with a goal of making a huge pile of profit on a database whose core they keep as free and OSS as possible. The profit takes priority due to VC funding. That's their goals.
Cockroach making profit on Linus et al's work without paying them isn't hypocritical since their license's actual goal was to do that. Whereas, the SaaS vendors are posing a challenge for Cockroach achieving their goals which require making money off their activities. Balancing giving code out as OSS and profit-seeking, they lightly-modified a license that starts as proprietary but goes Apache after 3 years. Personally, I think they're being way, way, too altruistic given what rate of return they're expected to come up with.
If anything, people that wrote their dependencies using freeloader-loving licenses are either achieving their goal of commercial uptake or need to pick a license that incentivizes their goals (or just blocks things they hate). If contributors, probably should contribute to software with strongest copyleft available. AGPL and Parity come to mind. Folks using licenses that don't require payment shouldn't expect payment. If folks want payment, then they should sell the software somehow with licenses worded to bring in revenue.