commit 14d5a1f40ba708f678f8b1ca7eb493ee3de0a91a · bmann.ca/bmannconsulting.com

+17

_journals/2024-02-16_1745.md

···

       1
       +
       ---

     

       2
       +
       title: February 16th, 2024

     

       3
       +
       date: 2024-02-16, 17:45:38 -08:00

     

       4
       +
       section: journal

     

       5
       +
       link: https://arcanican.is/excerpts/cve-2024-23832/discovery.htm

     

       6
       +
       tags:

     

       7
       +
         - opensource

     

       8
       +
         - Mastodon

     

       9
       +
         - security

     

       10
       +
       ---

     

       11
       +
       Great read about the [recent Mastodon CVE](https://arcanican.is/excerpts/cve-2024-23832/discovery.htm) (which could allow taking over and forging content for remote accounts). 

     

       12
       +
       

     

       13
       +
       I’m quoting a bit here about open source:

     

       14
       +
       

     

       15
       +
       > how people seem to only care for the 'gratis' of free software, and seldom the 'libre', and millions of users leaning on the work of primarily a couple developers, assuming they have the attentiveness to catch every mistake themselves alone

     

       16
       +
       

     

       17
       +
       There aren’t enough funded people - both teams and individuals - working on Fediverse software, and both the users and the admins seem averse to paying for it.

+23

_journals/2024-02-16_1750.md

···

       1
       +
       ---

     

       2
       +
       title: February 16th, 2024

     

       3
       +
       date: 2024-02-16, 17:50:34 -08:00

     

       4
       +
       section: journal

     

       5
       +
       link: https://jacobian.org/2024/feb/16/paying-maintainers-is-good/

     

       6
       +
       tags:

     

       7
       +
         - opensource

     

       8
       +
       ---

     

       9
       +
       Jacob Kaplan-Moss writes [[Paying people to work on open source is good actually]] which very much matches my thoughts so I’m clipping it to my local notes. 

     

       10
       +
       

     

       11
       +
       I’ll share a handful of quotes:

     

       12
       +
       

     

       13
       +
       > “Yelling at maintainers who’ve found a way to make a living is wrong.”

     

       14
       +
       

     

       15
       +
       > “Open source is _good for humanity_…I want people who want to work on open source to be able to do so, and should be able to live comfortable lives, with their basic needs met.

     

       16
       +
       

     

       17
       +
       > I’ll even use the terms “open source” and “free software” interchangeably just to hammer home how, in this context, the precise definitions of these terms don’t matter to me

     

       18
       +
       

     

       19
       +
       One of the core things that I’m ready to fight for alongside Jacob is that “lower case” open source should be a bigger tent than [[OSI-approved Open Source]]™️ licenses, and it’s what **I** mean when I use the term. 

     

       20
       +
       

     

       21
       +
       > if my sloppy use of these terms bothers you _in the context of talking about how people make their living_, it implies that you care more about terminology and definitions than about the people, and I’d like you to sit in that discomfort for a while

     

       22
       +
       

     

       23
       +
       Read [the whole thing](https://jacobian.org/2024/feb/16/paying-maintainers-is-good/).

+13

_notes/OSI-approved Open Source.md

···

       1
       +
       ---

     

       2
       +
       link: https://opensource.org/licenses/

     

       3
       +
       tags:

     

       4
       +
         - opensource

     

       5
       +
         - licensing

     

       6
       +
       ---

     

       7
       +
       The [[OSI]] keeps a list of approved licenses. 

     

       8
       +
       

     

       9
       +
       Fair licenses, non-commercial licenses, ethical licenses, and similar licenses are not approved.

     

       10
       +
       

     

       11
       +
       For fair / non-commercial licenses that require businesses that make money to pay for a license, they don’t comply because they “discriminate” against businesses using the code without contributing back — [[Open Source Definition#6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor]]

     

       12
       +
       

     

       13
       +
       I’ve written more at [[Open Source Licensing]]

+16

_notes/OSI.md

···

       1
       +
       ---

     

       2
       +
       title: Open Source Initiative

     

       3
       +
       tags:

     

       4
       +
         - acronym

     

       5
       +
         - opensource

     

       6
       +
         - organization

     

       7
       +
       link: https://opensource.org

     

       8
       +
       ---

     

       9
       +
       Open Source Initiative

     

       10
       +
       ## About

     

       11
       +
       

     

       12
       +
       > As steward of the [[Open Source Definition]], we set the foundation for the open source software ecosystem.

     

       13
       +
       

     

       14
       +
       > The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a California public benefit corporation, with 501(c)3 tax-exempt status, founded in 1998.

     

       15
       +
       

     

       16
       +
       My take on [[OSI-approved Open Source]] is that it is harmful in gate keeping some approaches to open source.

+54

_notes/Open Source Definition.md

···

1
+
---

2
+
link: https://opensource.org/definition/

3
+
tags:

4
+
- opensource

5
+
aliases:

6
+
- OSD

7
+
---

8
+
This is what is used to define what an [[OSI]]-approved Open Source license needs in order to qualify.

9
+

10
+
> Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open source software must comply with the following criteria:

11
+

12
+
I’m including the full text below in order to reference it elsewhere on this site.

13
+

14
+
---

15
+

16
+
### 1. Free Redistribution

17
+

18
+
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

19
+

20
+
### 2. Source Code

21
+

22
+
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

23
+

24
+
### 3. Derived Works

25
+

26
+
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

27
+

28
+
### 4. Integrity of The Author’s Source Code

29
+

30
+
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of “patch files” with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

31
+

32
+
### 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

33
+

34
+
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

35
+

36
+
### 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

37
+

38
+
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

39
+

40
+
### 7. Distribution of License

41
+

42
+
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.

43
+

44
+
### 8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

45
+

46
+
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program’s being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program’s license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

47
+

48
+
### 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

49
+

50
+
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open source software.

51
+

52
+
### 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

53
+

54
+
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.

+40

_notes/Paying people to work on open source is good actually.md

···

       1
       +
       ---

     

       2
       +
       link: https://jacobian.org/2024/feb/16/paying-maintainers-is-good/

     

       3
       +
       author:

     

       4
       +
         - Jacob Kaplan-Moss

     

       5
       +
       tags:

     

       6
       +
         - opensource

     

       7
       +
         - article

     

       8
       +
         - licensing

     

       9
       +
       published: 2024-02-16

     

       10
       +
       ---

     

       11
       +
       Jacobian [made a post that prompted lots of discussion and feedback](https://social.jacobian.org/@jacob/111914179201102152):

     

       12
       +
       

     

       13
       +
       <iframe src="https://social.jacobian.org/@jacob/111914179201102152/embed" class="mastodon-embed" style="max-width: 100%; border: 0" width="400" height=“600” allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><script src="https://social.jacobian.org/embed.js" async="async"></script>

     

       14
       +
       

     

       15
       +
       So he wrote this post as the long form of what he meant, which is that however maintainers are being paid, being paid full time to work on open source is good for everyone, and that we do need to both celebrate any instance of this happening, and need to try more things to increase the number of full time paid maintainers.

     

       16
       +
       

     

       17
       +
       ## Lower Case Open Source

     

       18
       +
       

     

       19
       +
       I’ve been extremely annoyed by the [[OSI]] for actively refusing the label of open source / approved licenses for non-commercial and similar licenses. See [[OSI-approved Open Source]] for some of my rant.

     

       20
       +
       

     

       21
       +
       For one, I think their (corporate friendly) stance has outlived its usefulness, and I don’t think one US-based organization can speak for all of open source. 

     

       22
       +
       

     

       23
       +
       Here’s Jacobian’s “lower case” open source definition, which I very much agree with:

     

       24
       +
       

     

       25
       +
       > in this piece, I’m going to use “open source” to mean anything on this spectrum from “totally unencumbered” to “unencumbered with some restrictions”, and I’m not going to articulate how much “some” would be too much for something to still be considered free. I’ll even use the terms “open source” and “free software” interchangeably just to hammer home how, in this context, the precise definitions of these terms don’t matter to me.

     

       26
       +
       

     

       27
       +
       > if my sloppy use of these terms bothers you _in the context of talking about how people make their living_, it implies that you care more about terminology and definitions than about the people, and I’d like you to sit in that discomfort for a while

     

       28
       +
       

     

       29
       +
       The setup for this is an important background, but these core quotes align with my own thoughts. 

     

       30
       +
       

     

       31
       +
       ## Sustainability

     

       32
       +
       

     

       33
       +
       > When I talk about “sustainability”, though, I mean something very specific: “can maintainers live a decent-to-comfortable lifestyle writing free software?” If open source was “sustainable”, to me, it would mean that people could chose to make writing open source their job, and be assured that they have _at a minimum_their basic needs met – housing, food, healthcare, etc. Ideally, more than that; I’d love it if writing open source afforded people a comfortable or downright luxurious lifestyle.

     

       34
       +
       

     

       35
       +
       I’ve written various things about people getting paid to have [[open source as a job]]. 

     

       36
       +
       

     

       37
       +
       > **Any time someone gets paid to write open source it’s a win**

     

       38
       +
       > Right now, here in the real world, **sustainability in open source means paying maintainer — and we should be celebrating every time that happens!** Every time a maintainer finds a way to get paid, it’s a win.

     

       39
       +
       

     

       40
       +
       > Many, many more people should be getting paid to write free software, but for that to happen we’re going to have to be okay accepting impure or imperfect mechanisms.

+16

_notes/open source as a job.md

···

1
+
---

2
+
tags:

3
+
- opensource

4
+
---

5
+
On the topic of sustainability in open source, what if being a maintainer meant being able to work full time on an open source codebase.

6
+

7
+
That means without having to be a consultancy, without having to sell future support hours. Your job is stewarding an open source code base - maintenance and updates, new features over time, documentation, community etc

8
+

9
+
For people based in the United States, having open source as a full time job means a comparatively very high salary need.

10
+

11
+
As an individual needing to pay for housing and healthcare, this will be $150K - $200KUSD annually.

12
+

13
+
TODO: grab links to discussion with Eleventy

14
+

15
+
From a global perspective, I think that this number will go down over time. Or rather, I’d like to see more developers in the global south make money at all. The global north is better equipped / has more privilege to pursue commercial pursuits that can yield a higher return. For the global south, we should _start_ by getting full time paid positions marked to their local markets.

16
+