this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
33 points (100.0% liked)
Free and Open Source Software
17957 readers
22 users here now
If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's no expectation to contribute back when you use FOSS software, that makes no sense. I'm running Linux on like 10 devices and I've never merged anything in the kernel.
Technically true, but FOSS isn't "free" in the sense that someone is contributing labor to build and maintain the software. Free to use, but not free to make. I personally wouldn't expect or shame a person for using FOSS without contributing. But if you make a profitable business off a FOSS project, it seems reasonable to expect some form of contribution back to the project - not because it is technically required, but because who better to sponsor a project than someone profiting from it?
I mean, it's the smart thing to do (even from a purely selfish perspective where you want to make sure the project continues to go into the development direction that keeps making you money), but it's not something that's actionable in court or anything like that.
Exactly.
The reason most companies decide to contribute to FOSS is because it's a lot more efficient to fix bugs and add/influence features upstream than to do it at your end of the code independently of everybody else.
That depends on the license.
I have to keep track of our FOSS licenses at my job, and we have to avoid certain tools that feature licenses that do actually require upstream contribs. They usually only specify this as a req for commercial use of the tool, as a way to prevent someone taking the FOSS tool, adding new functions, profiting off the free work, and giving nothing back.
The Reciprocal Public License is one example.