

That is the implication if open licenses can’t deter corporate leeching while positioning for collaboration with volunteers. Unless there is an ideal license unknown to most projects that avoids the tragedy of the commons.
🙏🏽
I write software (C++) for a living.
#Emacs #Prolog #Erlang #SelfHosted
anti-witchhunt, see https://stallmansupport.org/


That is the implication if open licenses can’t deter corporate leeching while positioning for collaboration with volunteers. Unless there is an ideal license unknown to most projects that avoids the tragedy of the commons.


👍 the website makes a lot of the right noises.


You are saying that the commons is unviable. I think I am saying that that is because of corporate leeches.


The tragedy of the commons seems reasonable to you.
If a corporate saves $$$ by using GCC, they should give atleast $$ back (to GNU/FSF, and to SFC etc. for the other software they use), shouldn’t they? And they don’t. That is taking advantage in a negative sense.


Seriously? Lots of corporate software runs on Linux (or BSD). What are they, or the runtimes of their language platform, compiled using?


If you know of write-ups by others on this, you are welcome to share. It was a pretty long post, so I mentioned who authored it. If it was on, say, LWN, I wouldn’t have prefixed anything to the topic. It looks like it also helps people to avoid rich-man blogs (if they want to)!


Isn’t this a dog whistle for the AI scrapers? “Hey, we claim that here is some new non-slop you could steal”


I heard your goats’ grazing land has a datacenter now.


Corporates are involved in LLVM, Linux, GCC/GDB too, Go, Java, GraalVM, etc. too. Erlang came out of corporates too. These things seem too big to be done by volunteers. And Qualcomm probably bought them for their Max platform.
Mojo seems like good collateral output. Its base, MLIR, was already open. Their stdlib already was too.
Actually, it is about commercial value obtained from using GPL’d S/W (I don’t know why any volunteer would have wanted to donate S/W to corporates!). But some of the GPL’y projects atleast had self-interested funding of developers (by, e.g. Redhat). OSS’y S/W has had much less of that.
If you look at steps like the OIN, they tried to share IP amongst corporates rather than costs, so corporates do play along when they have to. Nothing like that happened for GPL’y or OSS’y S/W. LLM training is probably a licensing violation, and also the biggest possible leeching.
Sure, a “normie” using GPL’d S/W is on point, because volunteers donated their skills for that purpose. That part of the commons worked.