WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

333

"Respectfully, I am no longer going to support Fortune 500s ( and other smaller sized companies ) with my free work. There isn't much else to say," the developer previously wrote.

"Take this as an opportunity to send me a six figure yearly contract or fork the project and have someone else work on it.

> "Respectfully, I am no longer going to support Fortune 500s ( and other smaller sized companies ) with my free work. There isn't much else to say," the developer previously wrote. > >"Take this as an opportunity to send me a six figure yearly contract or fork the project and have someone else work on it.

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] 4 pts

The reason behind this mischief on the developer's part appears to be retaliation—against mega-corporations and commercial consumers of open-source projects who extensively rely on cost-free and community-powered software but do not, according to the developer, give back to the community.

Give away your stuff for free and then get butthurt when people use it.

[–] 0 pt

The first step in awakening to the predatory religion of 'open source software'. It's not slavery if you elect to work for other people for free, but it's still immoral.

Companies know there's enough naive idiots out there to do a sizable amount of their work for them. It's the 2010's version of the 2000's unpaid internships. I'm glad this guy is able to dig himself out of this trap.

[–] 0 pt

What I remember from open source software there was a part of the agreement that said anyone using it must release a version of their project as open source also. Kind of like software that is free for non-commercial use. Fortune 500 company's wouldn't be able to use it legally.

Depends on the license. GPLv3 and AGPLv3 code is rarely used by corporations. Some ban it explicitly, because it requires all derivative software also be released as open source.

MIT, Apache, BSD, etc are shit licenses, because they allow anyone to use, or even hack and modify your code, and not release the updated version for commercial products.

People don't like the GPL/FSF because there is an aspect to communist philosophy within in ... keeping a lot of GPL stuff kinda in the past. But it also means people who use GPL stuff know what they're doing, and know how to keep their userbase small and their software from being exploited.

[–] 2 pts

Brought some attention to Aaron Swartz so that's nice.

Although I somewhat agree with the sentiment, I would never sabotage. Too proud of my work. Actually, I take that back; the older it is the more sick I am to look at it. But still, not sick enough to break it on purpose.

Haven't contributed to any open source (I really should...) but I've written free software for the company I work for now. Didn't have any credentials or job experience, just a couple certifications that say I could do ohms law a little bit and work an IT help desk. So I had to spend my free time in the summer of 2017 writing this stupid Windows C# application they needed (I love to do embedded programming, I hate doing it for Winblows) just to prove I could do it and get my foot in the door. If they fired me, I'm certainly not going to go trash the source code for it and delete the binaries.

[–] 1 pt

I agree with the dev's reasoning, kind of, but not the way he went about it. Should have just re-licensed it. If you're going to write open source code in the spirit of OSS, then you have no right to get upset when somebody else uses it. But also, if you rely on OSS for your app, don't get upset when it breaks it.

I don't think there was any problem with a guy releasing a breaking change like this. He wouldn't have gotten attention otherwise, and the attention this is bringing is incredibly good. I do support the way he went about this too. We would have never had this discussion without it.

Also anyone who's pipeline broke due to this is a shit dev and should learn to pin their fucking versions ... and also not use Javascript.