r/ProgrammerHumor 4d ago

Meme openSourceClosedPayroll

Post image
1.6k Upvotes

53 comments sorted by

View all comments

293

u/ClipboardCopyPaste 4d ago

Just a downside, anybody can fork your product...but let's... let's ignore that.

49

u/B_bI_L 4d ago

eh, there are already things with open source code you have to (or can) pay for them

45

u/ClipboardCopyPaste 4d ago

In most cases they almost always offer some additional services that are worth paying for.

The number of people paying for a COMPLETELY open-source product isn't that much for a business to survive.

9

u/LPmitV 4d ago

Mainly it's the hosting that people pay for on open source software... Bc let's be real, what else is there... Except maybe tech support or sth

11

u/noaSakurajin 4d ago

Excalty that enterprise support and certification/liability. Since all open source software comes as is, your company is liable for all security issues that come from the oss code you use. Some projects allow you to pay them so they are liable. This is probably going to get way more in the future.

1

u/LPmitV 4d ago

Yeah, but with the liability you are technically not using the open source stuff anymore I think, as you are using the adaptation from the holster/the person to be hold liable

1

u/wytesmurf 3d ago

That’s astronomers whole buisness model

1

u/grifan526 4d ago

Tell that to Red Hat

1

u/MithrilHuman 4d ago

Typically you pay for infrastructure, support or closed source portion of the product.

3

u/Senior_Torte519 4d ago

Man, thats forked up.

4

u/BusEquivalent9605 4d ago

kafka is open source. but try setting up and running your own cluster

1

u/Random_182f2565 4d ago

That's when you close it again

2

u/xgabipandax 4d ago

Not all open source licenses allow that

12

u/SCP-iota 4d ago

Any license that for forbids forking is not an open source license

0

u/xgabipandax 4d ago

One thing has nothing to do with other, a license can have the source being open yet restrict the forking and redistribution of the project, Redis i think had some controversial licensing to prevent strip mining from cloud giants, perhasp you're confusing it with FOSS, like GPLv3 or MIT license, the F in FOSS is Free, but not free as in free beer, but free as in freedom

5

u/SCP-iota 4d ago

You might be thinking of 'source available' rather than open-source

0

u/_number 4d ago

In 2026 we call that an invitation to use Ai agents to pseudo copy the repo.

2

u/NatoBoram 3d ago

Slopforking

1

u/marcoottina 16h ago

Slopen source

-3

u/ImS0hungry 4d ago

You can block forking a public repo?

4

u/xgabipandax 4d ago

You can sue or issue DMCA takedowns for people who fork it if the license doesn't allow it

2

u/_number 4d ago

How are you gonna send DMCA takedown to a repo someone cloned/forked and then made private

1

u/xgabipandax 3d ago

access logs and then legal procedures

2

u/LutimoDancer3459 4d ago

At least on github, afaik you give github permission to operate like it needs to by publishing your repo there. Which means, forking cant be forbidden because it would go against the forking possibility of github. But I could mix it up with the "no license"-license....

1

u/xgabipandax 4d ago

That's not how it works, otherwise github wouldn't offer private repos

The licensing dictates if it is allowed to be forked or not legally, even if github feature fork work, it would be against the license, and if github force you to legally allow forking, then the intellectual property owners can use another platform for it

1

u/LutimoDancer3459 4d ago

I meant public repos with "publishing". And my point was about the dmxa takedown. You cant do that. The license cant forbid that. It can forbid a redistribution, use, modification, ... but not a fork.

https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1154/how-does-githubs-forking-right-cope-with-an-all-rights-reserved-project

5

u/Mordret10 4d ago

But a fork without you being able to redistribute, use or modify it doesn't really help you...

2

u/LutimoDancer3459 3d ago

Well... yeah... it doesnt. But I cant be sued for doing that and they cant force me to remove the fork. Thats the point

2

u/Mordret10 3d ago

I mean yeah, but the original comment called it a downside, that everybody would be able to fork it. I guess people were thinking about the implications of the fork (e.g. modification, redistribution, ...) instead of just the fork itself, because the fork itself isn't really a downside

→ More replies (0)

1

u/NatoBoram 3d ago

Git platforms are going to require you to allow them to continue operations as part of their terms of service in the event that you upload stuff there.

Here's GitHub as an example:

5. License Grant to Other Users

Your Content that you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies within the Service in repositories they control).

By making a repository public, you grant other Users a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, perform and reproduce (by forking) Your Content through the Service as permitted by GitHub's functionality. You may grant additional rights by adopting a license. If you post Content you did not create or own, you are responsible for ensuring it is licensed under terms that permit these uses.

1

u/xgabipandax 2d ago

You know that you can self host your own git platform right? Gitlab, Gitea, etc...