[gruez]

>I think one of the more prominent issues folks take with mass training on OSS is that the companies doing it are now profiting for having done it.

What makes this more objectionable than profiting off open source projects by using it directly? eg. tech giants using linux as a server OS, rather than having to pay microsoft thousands per server for a windows server license? With the original GPL, they don't even have to contribute back any patches.

[john_strinlai]

>What makes this more objectionable than profiting off open source projects by using it directly?

i can brag if netflix is using my X or facebook runs all their stuff with my Y. that can help me land consulting gigs, solicit donations, etc.

[Aurornis]

This is an edge case in OSS. Even among software packages used by Netflix and Amazon, few of them were attributable to a single maintainer or small group of individuals. They've long since become community developed projects.

[pseudalopex]

Netflix and Amazon use many packages of all sizes. And contributions to projects with many contributors helped people get jobs.

[Gud]

How would you even know that Netflix or Amazon uses your package?

[pseudalopex]

Their open source software depended on or derived from your package. They included your copyright notice with software they distributed. Someone contributed code. Someone reported a bug. Someone requested a feature. Someone mentioned it at a conference. I could continue.

[truncate]

More people use Linux, more recognition Linux itself get which directly or indirectly gets some more donations, developers etc.

With AI, the link is not clear at all. Its just pure consumption. There is no recognition.

[nomel]

> There is no recognition

I've never written or contributed to open source code with this being the goal. I never even considered this is why people do it.

[john_strinlai]

it has never been my explicit goal. but i have certainly enjoyed the rewards of recognition (e.g. i was able to lean on a successful project of mine to help land a nice consulting gig) and it would be silly to ignore that.

(edit: the comment i replied to was edited to be more a statement about themselves rather than a question about other developers, so my comment probably makes less sense now)

[Qwertious]

I don't dispute your own personal motives, but if it's never been a goal for most people, then CC0 would be more popular than the BSD or MIT license - it's simpler and much more legally straightforward to apply.

[truncate]

I worked on several open source projects both voluntarily or for work. The recognition doesn't really need to be financial. If people out there are using what you are building, contributing back, appreciating it -- it gives you motivation to continue working. Its human nature. One of the reason why there are so many abandoned projects out there.

[alwaysbeconsing]

Competition. Using my open source projects directly doesn't kill my employment. AI company explicitly say they want to put me out of work, using my code aginst me.