robmensching (u/robmensching)

robmensching commented on Open Source Maintenance Fee github.com/wixtoolset/iss... · Posted by u/AndrewDucker

AndyNemmity · 24 days ago

I'm not criticizing, mostly complaining about how poorly legal teams still perform in this capacity

I hear you. This feels very similar to the early days of OSS licenses. They were terrible and scary until a few big companies finally came out and said OSS licenses weren't (all) terrible or scary. Then accepting OSS licenses became a norm. I'm hoping the OSMF or something like it can change the norm for Open Source sustainability.

I'm not saying it'll happen, but many people told me Microsoft would never accept Open Source, and I proved them wrong. :)

robmensching commented on Open Source Maintenance Fee github.com/wixtoolset/iss... · Posted by u/AndrewDucker

qwery · 23 days ago

Hi, I realise I'm replying to a comment from over a week ago, but I happened across this and now I'm here.

I don't think you got what I intended with my comment. You may have missed the "they think" in the sentence you quoted, it was a bit dense. In any case, it sounds like you agree with me, if not what my comment conveyed. I agree with you.

(I also think my bullet metaphors might have touched and I merged 'bulletproof contract' with 'silver bullet'.)

robmensching · 23 days ago

Ahh, in that case, I think we are in "violent agreement". :)

robmensching commented on Open Source Maintenance Fee github.com/wixtoolset/iss... · Posted by u/AndrewDucker

account42 · a month ago

Anything that activates an organization's legal team is a great way to get developers to look for alternatives. No one wants to involve legal.

robmensching · 25 days ago

We used to say the same thing about Open Source licenses, and that changed. The long-term hope is that enough projects adopt the Open Source Maintenance Fee, or something like it, that it becomes the norm for companies to support the Open Source projects they depend upon.

And you can say that will never happen. But the only way it will _definitely_ never happen is if we don't try... and choose to keep burning out Open Source maintainers.

robmensching commented on Open Source Maintenance Fee github.com/wixtoolset/iss... · Posted by u/AndrewDucker

kvemkon · a month ago

OSMF could got name like WiX Toolset Maintenance Fee. Similar to how the Apache License got its name.

robmensching · a month ago

Why? It's not specific to the WiX Toolset at all. Other projects can (and some have) adopt the Open Source Maintenance Fee with no changes (or they can change if if they want).

WiX is just the first project to use the OSMF because I need a project to "debug" an issues in OSMF system. As we get all the issues resolved, we may see the OSMF be adopted widely... or not.

robmensching commented on Open Source Maintenance Fee github.com/wixtoolset/iss... · Posted by u/AndrewDucker

kvemkon · a month ago

Keeping downloads/installation behind EULA seems controversial (with all the discussed pros and cons). But prohibiting (or even making it illegal?) to open an issue seems to disrupt how free software communities work. Of course you are free to delay feedback for e.g. 2 weeks (see free access to lwn.net) or not to answer at all or to mark such an issue and move it to discussions but not to limit feedback to your project in such a way.

robmensching · a month ago

You should read the EULA. You'll find it doesn't say anything about the issue tracker.

The EULA is actually a very standard software license that basically says if you use the software and you make revenue, you need to pay the fee.

robmensching commented on Open Source Maintenance Fee github.com/wixtoolset/iss... · Posted by u/AndrewDucker

kvemkon · a month ago

Free software community participants, contributors, can feel discouraged with the diving the whole community in strictly 2 class of only Maintainers vs. Consumers and then demand something like an Open Source Contributors Fee. All those investigative and reporting work about software behavior issues, hard to reproduce issues, bugs only in specific environment or specific circumstances, sharing experience, helping each other and so on, let alone fixing some issues on their owns and posting PRs.

robmensching · a month ago

There aren't 2 classes of participants. The OSMF only talks about two but there are plenty of spaces for contributors to participate. And it's possible people will choose to participate less, but I haven't seen that happening yet. Contributors that like working on a project just work on a project. I've not seen any complaints about maintainers getting the paid because the contributors just drop in and drop out when they feel like it. They don't work on all the "chores" in the project to keep it running. If a contributor does do "chores" then they are probably more like a maintainer and probably should be part of the maintenance fee. But... this hasn't been a problem.

robmensching commented on Open Source Maintenance Fee github.com/wixtoolset/iss... · Posted by u/AndrewDucker

jackdawipper · a month ago

I take back my previous comment since I can't now edit it. I was wrong. I think the approach makes sense. There is nothing wrong with getting paid by commericial interests. Its the difficult side of FOSS where finding balance between the two worlds is kind of hard to achieve in a perfect way.

robmensching · a month ago

I appreciate that "edit". :)

And, yes, you are very correct that finding balance is very challenging. However, I feel that the OSMF suits the bill quite well, at least for projects of a shape and size that I'm familiar with.

robmensching commented on Open Source Maintenance Fee github.com/wixtoolset/iss... · Posted by u/AndrewDucker

zvr · a month ago

The number of publicly visible forks does not represent the number of organizations compiling their own binaries and internally mandating the use of such binaries.

Mind you, I never implied that there are thousands or hundreds of such cases. But there are some.

robmensching · a month ago

Oh, sure there are some. There were some before. It's Open Source after all. That's kinda' the point. :)

If more consumers choose to take on the work of maintaining their own fork because of the OSMF, that's okay too. I believe we are more likely to get contributions if more developers are in the code instead of just consuming binary builds. That's another small reason why I believe the OSMF can work.

robmensching commented on Open Source Maintenance Fee github.com/wixtoolset/iss... · Posted by u/AndrewDucker

AndyNemmity · a month ago

right, we wouldn't mention it at all. no way legal would approve it, so we'd just move to something else.

robmensching · a month ago

Legal in many companies of different sizes, from Microsoft to tiny ones, have all evaluated and approved of the OSMF EULA. Now, it's fine if someone says I don't want to deal with the EULA. But, in that case, my project didn't mean that much to them in the first place.

I'm listening to concerns and adapting. As noted above, so far, it's gone very well.

robmensching commented on Open Source Maintenance Fee github.com/wixtoolset/iss... · Posted by u/AndrewDucker

threemux · a month ago

Honest question: how would you know if companies stopped using the product as a result of this change? Presumably the only ones you'd hear from are ones that managed to get through the process far enough to complain about procurement (which is definitely another issue, pretty sure GitHub Sponsors doesn't do net 60...)

robmensching · a month ago

Oh, I (would and do) expect we'll see our download numbers (nuget.org and GitHub both track those) decrease. Or maybe consumers will choose to stay on a version before the OSMF was introduced longer. So, we'll kinda' be able to tell.

Simplifying the payment process for procurement is my focus in OSMF (after I get some work done at my day job) to minimize any friction.