The most interesting part (IMHO) of the post addressed Github, a multi-billion dollar acquisition on the backs of the open source contributors whose primary beneficiaries never seemed to give even a small portion of the profits back to the community.
If there are other people figuring out how to exploit the tendencies of open source developers, certainly it's fair to discuss how said developers can see a bit of those resources. Especially when the big winners aren't even considering giving back in a serious manner.
I find the Criticism of Github and Microsoft unwarranted; They contribute significantly to both the open source and startup business ecosystems;
Importantly; Free Public Github repositories; these aren't free to provide, they require storage and bandwidth. And not just for major projects, but any project. @ 28 million open source repositories, if you attribute that to the equivalent of $1/year; that is 10x what the author is calling for
Microsoft does a lot more too, whether it's "protecting" patents for Linux, or providing Visual Studio, Atom, sponsoring meetups and hackathons, and much more.
Disclaimer; Guest of Azure Incubation Week, had Microsoft sponsor BarCamps, and hackathons; And I host open source projects on github for free.
I completely agree with you. People should look at companies like Telmex (Mexican telecom company, owned by 3rd richest person in the world). They surely use a HUGE amount of Open Source and contribute zilch back.
In contrast, Github and Microsoft are huge contributors.
> "The most interesting part (IMHO) of the post addressed Github, a multi-billion dollar acquisition on the backs of the open source contributors whose primary beneficiaries never seemed to give even a small portion of the profits back to the community."
There I was, thinking that hosting (through high availability, and great tooling) the repositories for free was Github's way of "giving back to the community". But apparently that's somehow not enough?
That might have been a credible argument if the github platform were open source (as is the case with gitlab), but in absence of that it's fair to compare to similar free offerings like sourceforge and bitbucket.
Providing free hosting didn't win sourceforge or bitbucket or any of the other firms a multibillion dollar payout. What did was capturing the mindshare of open source developers and hosting high-profile projects. Ultimately, the value is derived from the fact that "everyone is using it" and the ecosystem built around it (because everyone is using it).
Honestly, AGPL license your projects: That will prevent obnoxious companies from taking your work without giving back.
If you deliberately pick a BSD-style license, then you don't get to complain about 'big winners' not cutting you a slice. They're doing exactly what you told them they could do.
People pick a BSD-style license because that's what they are told to do by VC-backed startups looking for a return. It's used as a marketing tool. The GPL and associated licenses are given a bad rap.
And now we have people complaining about big companies literally agreeing to the terms set out by little projects and someone they are being unfair?
The thing about AGPL is that you can still dual-license if you want. AGPL by default, and allow companies to purchase a non-AGPL version if you want.
If there are other people figuring out how to exploit the tendencies of open source developers, certainly it's fair to discuss how said developers can see a bit of those resources. Especially when the big winners aren't even considering giving back in a serious manner.