Today is the Put Your Open-Source Projects Into Public Domain Day. Face it: your open source ventures earned you no fame and no lucrative job offers.

Really successful open source projects earn their creators those things no matter the license — just look at porsager/postgres.

So, why limit the usage rights?

No, put the project with ambiguous license. Then track who uses it. Then sue them for copyright infringement.

That's not the point of restrictive open source licenses. The point is that all work based on it must be open source too. Then everyone can use that as well.

This seems relevant:

I went to a job interview and the guy after rejecting me told me because I had so many repositories I must have issues with complexity and need advice that I shouldn't tackle difficult problems or something

I had like 100 repos and half of them were things I had plans for but just stopped caring about, like for example one was a world generation algorithm and I had more plans for it but I lost interest. or I wanted to make a web-based .epub book reader and put text to speech on it but the .epub to web part took so long and then I couldn't get text to speech to work on Linux and I ended up growing more ok with the gay app I currently have so I just left it there like that...

or another time I made a little "creativity" thing which was a deck of "cards" from video game icons and you could draw them but a friend wanted to draw the cards by tags (like a goblin would be fantasy, animal, etc). he said he would manually tag all the icons so I don't have to but he never ended up doing it so there was this half-done feature on the website. reee

anyway I ended up hiding everything but the complete and perfectly usable, small stuff... I appeared to have scared the man

.... he also asked me what I thought was my best project or something and I said the screeps one

that was probably bad. he said he found it confusing. well yeah. I wrote an operating system to play a video game. but it was my favourite project to work on, because I got to mess around with performance and a lot of tricky ideas and had loads of fun with it

the guy who was interviewing me was the lead dev. you'd think he would appreciate code. I literally think he had issues reading any code at all

@jestdotty it is funny when you work with "it just works™" people, you really look like some code nerd to them who is nitpicking at perfectly fine, well payed piece of software that is bolognese under the hood.

We don't care if the code is shitty, it doesn't matter because app looks pretty!

Works too!

Those people!

For fucks sake!!!

Huh, never participated in PYOSPIPDD before 🤷

The only difference between copyleft and PD is that PD can make someone else a lot of money without my consent. That whole sentence. My own licensing doesn't prevent me from issuing separate licences to anyone who cares enough to send me an email with a pitch.

if you don't care that much and your derivative work isn't important, you can risk that a mature hobbyist who publishes under copyleft may just let it slide and not sue you.

Whoa, whoa. Watch your language.

Number one, "creator" has divine connotation and usage of this word instead of "author" to describe a human being arguably constitutes idolatry.

Second, "open source" is a corporate-driven prostitution of "free software", that is "free" as in "freedom" aka "libre", and by slapping GPL unto everything you are giving these wankers the deepest finger.

Third, interjection is a fully functioning GNU system.

@Liebranca as far as i know, materialising an idea is as close to godhood as you can be, an artist, prophet or dev are all the same. Materialised ideas

@workabit What are you saying? Sajdah is as close to God as anyone can be, anything else is delusion.

Clarification: I was talking about code published under MIT or similar licenses, not GNU.