I use wc but I don't donate to GNU/FSF (I'm sure some people do but almost no one I know does).
(just using `wc` as an example -- I'm well aware that `curl`'s utility is much greater. I use curl once in a while.)
People are only likely to donate to something that's solving a problem they care about.
Demanding (or asking) and needing/appreciating are two different things.
So "given away without demanding money" does not necessarily imply "and it's a decent behaviour to leverage that free source, make millions off of it, and never give anything back". It only implies that it's perfectly legal.
Leeches take what is not theirs to take, that's the whole point. When you follow all the rules, you're not a leech, you're a user.
If curl does not want users to have access to their software for free, then change the model. It's not even shareware or nagware or anything. It's just free. But to insult users who follow the rules is ridiculous.
I agree that if projects such as curl wanted payments, they would use different licenses. However, to me at least, it feels wrong when successful companies, e.g., BAT FAANG, use free software without giving anything back.
I see no downsides: if my company ever grew to FAANG proportions, I'd be happy to pay a few million dollars (then pocket change) to open source projects I used.
As it is, we have Free software projects feeling cheated (understandably), and their only recourse is to change to more restrictive licences.
I don't imagine going AGPL would mean much for curl though, or other such applications. It's projects like MongoDB (no longer Free and Open Source software, according to Wikipedia at least) that we're normally thinking of when it comes to AGPL.
When a library is released under a strong copyleft licence like the GPL, then you are welcome to make use of it, but you are required to release your software under that same licence (i.e. to make it Free and Open Source), if you publicly release it. They do not prohibit you from making money, nor do they single out large corporations for special hostile treatment. Any licence that does, is unlikely to be considered a Free Software licence, or an Open Source licence.
(The AGPL licence goes even further than the GPL, and can apply even if you don't release your software. This is relevant for the software-as-a-service model.)
If you use curl, consider contributing via their Open Collective page: https://opencollective.com/curl Even if your employer doesn't have an "open source fund," many companies allow you to expense < $50/month with minimal approval.
> 100% of donations received go towards funding diversity programs.
>> 100% of donations received go towards funding diversity programs.
Are there any organizations that use their donations to focus on supporting developers of actual open-source projects?
Diversity is great an all, but it makes more sense to focus on the people who are actually doing the work rather than the ones you hope might do the work.
Diversity efforts refer to scholarships at LF-organized events such as https://events.linuxfoundation.org/kubecon-cloudnativecon-eu....
I wonder why there aren't more shotgun style donations for these small ulities. Ie say 100k split over 100 most popular ulitities for security bounties etc
That would probably make a tangible impact on overall Internet security
Some countries nationals are allowed travel by ESTA (such as mine, the UK) but certain conditions preclude it, so you apply for a visa, which is what he is in the process of doing during that post.
I bet you could submit a link from his April follow up and get some traction.
The "What could possibly go wrong?" list would be quite long, but not being able to travel to the US is probably costing them money.