[prmoustache]

I don't see where it is not ethical.

At any point you can decide to pursue or stop maintaining the code and anyone can decide to fork and take over. It is just naive to think you will always find fun in working on it or pretend you might make a living out of it unless you have a strong business plan.

[ReleaseCandidat]

> I don't see where it is not ethical.

And that's the problem.

Many people like the idea of 'helping' other people for free, even if these users never 'give something back' (because they can't program, don't have the time to translate something, ...). But helping other people (companies) make money for free that already have not only enough but way more than you, and you even do the less rewarding work like fixing bugs is not what moste people thought of when making OSS.

[sitkack]

To explain it a different way, I think, is that releasing code under a permissive license where the end user is a large corp, doesn't make the world a better place, it just reduces the labor needed to achieve an end.

OSS saves on headcount.

[mring33621]

At my company, a huge bank, where we use a ton of open source code, we were explicitly told that working on (contributing to) open source was a terminal offense.

[Tostino]

Name and shame them.

[wizzwizz4]

I don't think it's fair to expect this user to do that. (However, if somebody else knows of a bank like that…)

[Tostino]

I mean throwaway accounts just pop up all over. I would never expect GP to answer and put themselves at risk ;).

[lumost]

In the case of industrial control, database tech, and other high cost fields it would be dubious to pitch an open source product and then abandon it.

Getting a high adoption OSS project takes more than putting a repo on GitHub. In some cases like this one, it’s possible that the underlying cost of these activities is much closer to the licensed proprietary software than the OSS variant (aka free)

[zozbot234]

> In the case of industrial control, database tech, and other high cost fields it would be dubious to pitch an open source product and then abandon it.

Why? Open source projects are released with "NO WARRANTY", which includes the possibility of dropping maintenance at any time. If you want continued support you either fork the project and DIY, or pay someone to support you.

[mason55]

And that is not something the companies using the software are interested in.

This isn’t like a software company taking over some abandonware tool that they rely on. Building and maintaining software is not in the wheelhouse of these companies. They’d rather spend more or have fewer features in exchange for lowering risk.

[prmoustache]

It is the ethical problem of those companies, not of the people writing the original code.

[prmoustache]

So Google liberated kubernetes under the Apache License 2.0. Many companies are now relying on it for their workload and we see contribution from other big companies as well.

Are you saying that it would be unethical if Google find out they'd now rather work on something newer/better, and stop having engineers contributing to it?

[KSteffensen]

The guy has been working on this almost 25 years. That's not pitching and abandoning.

[phoronixrly]

The unethical part is that you've contributed (for free!) to the development of closed-source proprietary software.

[akerl_]

What is unethical about contributing (for free!) to the development of closed-source software?

And if you’ve decided that making open-source software inherently contributes to the development of closed-source software, what’s your recommendation?

If it’s unethical to work on closed-source and open-source, do we all just go home and stop writing code?

[chrisdutz]

When I started to work on PLC4X I was hoping people would be using it to build commercial applications and either making money with it, saving money or building better products. That's why I stronly believe in the Apache License and am not a GPL advocate.

However I would never have expected that allmost nothing is returned by anyone.

I mean, I'm an IT consultant and I was doing consulting with other projects that I work on and I'm fine with that. I love doing that, I love giving training, mentoring people and companies to become open-source contributors. I saw that the effort-to-improvement-ratio open-source could bring to the automation industry was just incredible 5 years ago. That's why I put so much work into the project and I continue doing so ... just differently ;-)

[phoronixrly]

We're getting into technicalities here, but in my opinion the ethical thing to do is to share your code freely for everyone else to use, however at the same time use a license that requires them to do the same with any code they derive from yours. This is absolutely nothing new, ref. the GPL.

[akerl_]

It’s clear that your preference is that people do that. What’s not clear is why the MIT license and closed source software are unethical.

Not everything we dislike is a violation of ethics.

[rbanffy]

> What’s not clear is why the MIT license and closed source software are unethical.

Is it ethical to allow unethical behavior?

[akerl_]

I feel like we’re in a loop. Are you saying that making software under MIT or closed source licenses allows unethical behavior in a way that makes creation of that software unethical? If so, can you back that up instead of asking rhetorical questions?

I write software personally, which I license under the MIT license. I write software professionally, which is closed source. I don’t believe either of those things is inherently unethical. There are obviously examples of any kind of software that are unethical, and there are ways that closed source licenses enable unethical behavior, but I’m not following the expansion of that to the license choice itself.

[FpUser]

Stupid it may be but it is not unethical. We live in supposedly free world and one has full right to decide how their work is to be used. Don't like it, just use GPL or whatever license you might want to concoct to prevent / limit corporate use.