80
Periphery as open source project is ended. (periphery.pro)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Periphery, a famous and efficient tool to check dead code, moves from open source model to commercial model ๐Ÿ˜ญ

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)

Without looking at the history all I can say your interpratation is possible. However, I reject the idea it's ""professional"" to close source a once open source project. I can certainly understand a simple project becoming untenable due to popularity and sympathize the need to make money but failing to respect user's software freedom points closer to their suggested motives.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 17 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Professional just means getting paid.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] -4 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    If so then I reject the implication that you cannot get meaningfully paid without making an open source project closed source.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 9 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    How do you suggest they get paid? There's a massive issue with most foss devs and maintainers being unpaid and burnt out while their work is used by corpos and more often than not they don't receive a dime

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 4 points 1 month ago

    This here. FOSS as a dedicated concept exists since around 40 years and we still haven't figured out how to fund it.

    The only meaningful way to fund FOSS is the Linux way: Coprorations use the FOSS in a way where they can't sell the software directly, instead, the software is used as infrastructure to make money another way.

    Microsoft, Amazon, Oracle and so on, they make money by selling cloud compute running Linux. To do so, Linux needs to be really good, so they contribute developer time too the Linux kernel and to certain tools.

    The same strategy works for programming frameworks, like Angular, which is being developed by Google, because Google uses it in tons of their products.

    But this doesn't work for end customer software and it's basically impossible to get a "grassroots" developed piece of FOSS into the corporate mill.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    You say most, so some have figured it out then?

    I think a universal basic income would make it a lot easier for devs to choose to continue/start making free (libre) software. Depending on the country, a UBI funded by tech companies - including those corpos using it without giving back.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [โ€“] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Looks like you have never tried to monetize FOSS.

    It's close to impossible. Look at heartbleed or the xz disaster. Two fundamental pieces of software used on billions of devices, neither of them made enough money for a single full-time dev.

    And you are suggesting that one can make enough money from a FOSS REST client?

    Look at breadsmasher's original comment. There's not a word in there about "betraying FOSS ideals", nor does it contain a complaint about "closing the source".

    No, the whole comment is "Fuck Thunder REST because they want me to pay for features". Breadsmasher is a freeloader. He would never donate anything. He uses FOSS, not because he wants freedom as in free speech, nor does he use it because he wants to review or modify the source. He uses FOSS for the "free as in free beer" aspect.

    And when someone says "Now please contribute to a project you've been using for free", he gets entitled and throws a fit like a two-year-old.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [โ€“] 0 points 1 month ago

    If you know where I could read about the monetary issues of xz and heartbeat I would appreciate such links.

    You could be right about their ill motives for what they said but we do not know if they can even afford to pay or know enough to contribute. You could say my motives for software freedom are selfishly motivated, and I've only donated an OS. Given the numerous libre projects in our OS it's difficult for anyone to do them all?

    It makes sense that it's more difficult to earn money from software when you attach a software freedom license - you're actively choosing to not take advantage of your users. Like choosing not to just dump mercury in the river when it's legal.

    I enjoy writing code so not having the bad incentives from trying to monetize it seems a blessing - I don't feel compelled to deny user software freedom for profit. I think focus may be better placed on promoting a univeral basic income - where everyone's income doesn't start at 0. That would help devs choose to keep their projects open.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent