1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.MISC

  • TIL: =?UTF-8?B?4oCcT3BlbiBTb3VyY2UgUnVnIFB1bGzigJ0=?=

    From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 22 01:23:24 2024
    From <https://redmonk.com/jgovernor/2024/09/13/open-source-foundations-considered-helpful/>:

    The “rug pull” here refers to companies that have used open source
    as a distribution mechanism, building a community and user base,
    before changing the license to be restricted, rather than truly
    open source.

    A.k.a. “bait and switch”.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anton Shepelev@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 1 01:11:51 2024
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro:

    From <https://redmonk.com/jgovernor/2024/09/13/open-source-foundations-considered-helpful/>:

    The rug pull here refers to companies that have used open source
    as a distribution mechanism, building a community and user base,
    before changing the license to be restricted, rather than truly
    open source.

    Isn't it exactly what GNU GPL provides against?

    --
    () ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
    /\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eli the Bearded@21:1/5 to anton.txt@gmail.moc on Fri Nov 1 00:13:38 2024
    In comp.misc, Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> wrote:
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro:
    From <https://redmonk.com/jgovernor/2024/09/13/open-source-foundations-considered-helpful/>:

    The "rug pull" here refers to companies that have used open source
    as a distribution mechanism, building a community and user base,
    before changing the license to be restricted, rather than truly
    open source.
    Isn't it exactly what GNU GPL provides against?

    Lots of licenses prevent this: sort-of.

    The code up until the license change remains available under the
    previous license, but the companies keep developing it and newer code is
    not free and older code is not supported.

    This is a problem if you rely on using supported products.

    But maybe someone else takes the unencumbered version and develops that.
    Then you get a fork that may no longer be compatible, an issue if you
    use code from a third party to interact with it.

    As an example, see Elasticsearch changing their license, AWS forking it
    to Opensearch, and the two code bases diverging, while various libraries
    kept up with Elastic.

    Other variations are possible. Open Source doesn't scale so well when
    the code base is bigger than a single human can fully understand. Forks
    become the product of some other business or go stale.

    Or you get Open Source like Android. Go ahead, compile it yourself. Good
    luck using that -- without even modifying it -- as a drop in replacement
    on your phone.

    A few, very rare, projects do succeed despite breaking the "single human" barrier. Also a few, very rare, people win the lottery.

    Elijah
    ------
    fucking Android

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Schlomo Goldberg@21:1/5 to Eli the Bearded on Sat Nov 2 07:37:21 2024
    Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:

    Open Source doesn't scale so well when
    the code base is bigger than a single human can fully understand.

    Linux with all its tools must be pretty stale then.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scott Dorsey@21:1/5 to schlomo.goldberg@mailinator.com on Sun Nov 3 01:57:02 2024
    Schlomo Goldberg <schlomo.goldberg@mailinator.com> wrote:
    Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:

    Open Source doesn't scale so well when
    the code base is bigger than a single human can fully understand.

    Linux with all its tools must be pretty stale then.

    Quite the opposite. GNU/Linux is changing faster than any one human being
    can keep up with, that's where the scaling problems come in.

    I sure wish it were more stale.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John McCue@21:1/5 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Sun Nov 3 14:24:03 2024
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    From <https://redmonk.com/jgovernor/2024/09/13/open-source-foundations-considered-helpful/>:
    <snip>
    A.k.a. “bait and switch”.

    Quote from the article.
    But on balance yes – Open source foundations considered helpful.

    and I will finish it:
    "... to the companies who own the foundation."

    The Linux Foundation is owned by large corporations, which
    is listed at the end of the article.

    The LF now exists to only help Large Companies, its purpose
    is to provide free labor to those companies.

    For an example, look at OpenSSH, every company uses it, yet
    IBM for one does not donate to it. Instead, IBM happily
    bundles OpenSSH with AIX and RHEL. There are plenty of
    examples of projects were the authors are struggling to
    meet their expenses. The LF is no where in sight for them,
    instead most of their donations go to admin type people
    and now to some AI spin-off. Hardly any goes into Linux.

    If the LF cared for the users of Linux, they would force
    Companies like Nvidia to open-up their firmware, preventing
    Linux from using Nvidia GPUs like they do with ZFS.

    Instead, Nvidia being a nice big contributor, can do what
    they want. Thus preventing its full use on many system
    that contain their GPU.

    --
    [t]csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
    - Paraphrasing Star Wars

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to John McCue on Sun Nov 3 22:08:08 2024
    This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
    while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

    On Sun, 3 Nov 2024, John McCue wrote:

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    From <https://redmonk.com/jgovernor/2024/09/13/open-source-foundations-considered-helpful/>:
    <snip>
    A.k.a. “bait and switch”.

    Quote from the article.
    But on balance yes – Open source foundations considered helpful.

    and I will finish it:
    "... to the companies who own the foundation."

    The Linux Foundation is owned by large corporations, which
    is listed at the end of the article.

    The LF now exists to only help Large Companies, its purpose
    is to provide free labor to those companies.

    For an example, look at OpenSSH, every company uses it, yet
    IBM for one does not donate to it. Instead, IBM happily
    bundles OpenSSH with AIX and RHEL. There are plenty of
    examples of projects were the authors are struggling to
    meet their expenses. The LF is no where in sight for them,
    instead most of their donations go to admin type people
    and now to some AI spin-off. Hardly any goes into Linux.

    If the LF cared for the users of Linux, they would force
    Companies like Nvidia to open-up their firmware, preventing
    Linux from using Nvidia GPUs like they do with ZFS.

    Instead, Nvidia being a nice big contributor, can do what
    they want. Thus preventing its full use on many system
    that contain their GPU.

    This mirrors my experience of how it was to try to work with the LF.
    Horrible organization filled at the top with middle-managers who only want
    to stuff their CV:s.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)