• Norgur
    link
    fedilink
    821 month ago

    Close as “won’t fix”. Easy. That’s what their customer service does to your ticket, too, if it’s too much to handle, so…

    • @xantoxis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      54
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      These bugs are always opened by IC developers who need help and have little agency. So,

      Closed “won’t fix” with note

      Contributions accepted if you want to deliver the fix. If you are not in a position to dictate to your employer how your time is spent (and, if so, I understand your problem) please report to your manager that you will be unable to use this software without contributing the fix. Alternately, switch to [competitor]. Your manager should understand that the cost to the company of contributing a fix for this bug is less than the switching cost for [competitor]. I wish you luck, either way.

      And then make the above text a template response, so you don’t have to spend your time typing it more than once.

    • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏
      link
      fedilink
      611 month ago

      I personally think some types of openly developed software projects should have a strict non-commercial license: if companies aren’t willing to contribute back to the source IMO they shouldn’t be granted permission to freeload & have volunteers fix issues their paying customers run into

      Donations are possibly a bit of an exception here - there are quite a few companies that still do this, albeit growing slimmer by the day.

      Another big problem IMO is the subset of users that start attacking maintainers and volunteers because their “free app stopped working” etc. I see that a lot, mostly in the arduino community, but especially egregiously on the Zabbix project - I imagine a lot of those users are companies who aren’t even paying/donating to the project

      • @bassomitron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 month ago

        From my understanding, companies that use open software in paid products are charging for their services and support and not the software itself. Correct me if I’m wrong, as I may well be. I just know that’s how companies like Elastic and what not get away with primarily using OSS in their products.

      • @onlinepersona@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 month ago

        if companies aren’t willing to contribute back to the source IMO they shouldn’t be granted permission to freeload & have volunteers fix issues their paying customers run into

        I agree with this although it does make me wonder what the world would look like if things had been that way since the beginning. Would the current opensource environment exist? Regardless, the times are different now and opensource is becoming more and more recognized, companies are massively freeloading and a few privileged developers get to make money on their opensource projects.

        Anti Commercial-AI license

      • @Lightfire228@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        7
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        It’s an explicit “opt-out” by the OP, such that their content cannot (legally) be used to train LLMs or such (Chat GPT, Github Copilot, etc)

        Well, that’s what I assumed until i read the license terms. It doesn’t explicitly mention AI or LLMs, but it does say

        You may not use the material for commercial purposes

        Which i assume has the same limitations for AI training, for commercial AI

        (I am not a lawyer)

        • @barinzaya@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          5
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Also not a lawyer, but my understanding has always been that a license grants permissions, not limits them. No license means no permissions granted. Most sites have terms that you agree to (by posting to the site) that tell you what they may do with your content, and I don’t think a license you tack onto it can change that (though it can grant permission to others).

          As for scrapers and such, they were never granted any permissions to use anything. They just don’t care. A license is also unlikely to change that.

          I think licenses on posts are pointless and tacky, personally, but I could be missing something.

  • Victor
    link
    fedilink
    81 month ago

    Is this the case? Don’t corporations usually sponsor a little bit at least?

    • @OrganicMustard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      401 month ago

      In most cases no. Sometimes they let their developers contribute to the open source projects for a small percentage of their working time.

      • Victor
        link
        fedilink
        71 month ago

        When I do, I don’t ask them whether they donate to the foss projects they consume, let’s put it that way.

    • @frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      211 month ago

      Some send table scraps to bigger organization, like the Apache Foundation. The millions of small projects that they depend on get shit.

      • Victor
        link
        fedilink
        41 month ago

        money being billed

        Sorry, what do you mean?

        • @SigHunter@lemmy.kde.social
          link
          fedilink
          Afaraf
          230 days ago

          sorry must’ve mistyped on the phone. I corrected my post. I basically meant: corporations pay bills, without having a bill they do not pay stuff. they do not give away money if they don’t have to. so paid support contracts are imho a good way for corporations to pay for FOSS. donations not so much

    • @fibojoly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      91 month ago

      Not one company I’ve worked at has ever paid a license for anything if it was at all possible to do it freely.

      EPPlus trying to get money for their hard work? Guess we are stuck on the free version forever then…

      It’s fucking embarrassing.

  • @IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    11 month ago

    Absolutely untrue. Yes there has always been the Oracle or fucking more recently gitlab and hasicorp, but the most successful oss projects have plenty of commercial backing.

  • @mhague@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    -161 month ago

    I don’t see a negative. It’s foss so you ought to be relaxed about others using your code. The issues are probably just articulating problems that were already there. If it’s stuff you don’t care about… it’s a foss repository so you just ignore it.

    • Scrubbles
      link
      fedilink
      English
      7
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Until the death threats and doxxing start coming in