Another Project Goes Private: Amara Stops Being Developed As Open Source (amara.org) 61
Slashdot reader northar writes:
Subtitling project Amara closes its repository as focus is shifting... Amara was AGPL up until going private.
While future improvements to the code base from the Participatory Culture Foundation (PCF) will not be public, a copy of the last public code base has been preserved at Gitlab, should anyone be interested in the work done up until now. Note that no support is given from PCF for this code
From Amara's official statement on the move: The Participatory Culture Foundation began as a nonprofit in 2006 with a focus on creating open source software to ensure that emerging video technologies were accessible to all.... For an organization like PCF, which relies on revenue generated from sustainability initiatives to fund social impact work, we believe the risk to these initiatives outweighs the potential or perceived public benefit from maintaining open code.
Releasing software as open source unfortunately does not provide protection against well-funded technology firms that are driven by profit... Without the proper market position and resources, a smaller organization that relies on revenue from software they build can be outmaneuvered or overpowered with the very technology they created (assuming their code is open source). This is not only a threat to smaller organizations, but has also become a bigger debate that much larger companies are also hashing out. For venture-funded or publicly traded firms, the open source approach can be a calculated risk that makes business sense. But for less-capitalized organizations or nonprofits, like PCF, who lack significant market power, making software open source puts other more well-resourced players in position to leverage the technology in ways that may undermine the sustainability and/or the values of the original developer.
With these shifts in the computing landscape, PCF has not seen individuals or communities as the primary beneficiary of releasing Amara code as open source. Instead, we have unfortunately had firsthand experience with a venture-funded organization deploying code we created and using it in ways that we did not think aligned well with our values....
As we undertake this shift in 2020, we are aware that the computing landscape will continue to change and thus we remain open to newer and better strategies for making source code available in the long-term. Future strategies might include data trusts and/or new licenses that better align with our sustainability initiatives and mission.
Subtitling project Amara closes its repository as focus is shifting... Amara was AGPL up until going private.
While future improvements to the code base from the Participatory Culture Foundation (PCF) will not be public, a copy of the last public code base has been preserved at Gitlab, should anyone be interested in the work done up until now. Note that no support is given from PCF for this code
From Amara's official statement on the move: The Participatory Culture Foundation began as a nonprofit in 2006 with a focus on creating open source software to ensure that emerging video technologies were accessible to all.... For an organization like PCF, which relies on revenue generated from sustainability initiatives to fund social impact work, we believe the risk to these initiatives outweighs the potential or perceived public benefit from maintaining open code.
Releasing software as open source unfortunately does not provide protection against well-funded technology firms that are driven by profit... Without the proper market position and resources, a smaller organization that relies on revenue from software they build can be outmaneuvered or overpowered with the very technology they created (assuming their code is open source). This is not only a threat to smaller organizations, but has also become a bigger debate that much larger companies are also hashing out. For venture-funded or publicly traded firms, the open source approach can be a calculated risk that makes business sense. But for less-capitalized organizations or nonprofits, like PCF, who lack significant market power, making software open source puts other more well-resourced players in position to leverage the technology in ways that may undermine the sustainability and/or the values of the original developer.
With these shifts in the computing landscape, PCF has not seen individuals or communities as the primary beneficiary of releasing Amara code as open source. Instead, we have unfortunately had firsthand experience with a venture-funded organization deploying code we created and using it in ways that we did not think aligned well with our values....
As we undertake this shift in 2020, we are aware that the computing landscape will continue to change and thus we remain open to newer and better strategies for making source code available in the long-term. Future strategies might include data trusts and/or new licenses that better align with our sustainability initiatives and mission.
Bullshit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Newsflash: You don't compete with market, what you set out to do is hand out free candy for as long until the market finds out they're addicted. Efficient FOSS strategy essentially amounts to price dumping.
Packing the toys and suddenly sticking a price tag on em thinking this will make you an equal to well funded corporations is somewhat delusional (unless a stealth VC is involved). The whole point with free software is to outmaneuver commercial market by means of playing entirely different game. A game where clout with project contributors, not vendor-lock in is your leverage. Play it long enough and you'll soon be at the top of the game where not even the likes of Google can wrestle with you.
Linus didn't complain about Redhat, he encouraged it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If you set out to write free software with the goal of selling it for profit (instead of the goal being writing good software), you've joined the wrong communist club.
Actually, this pretty much follows how every country that has tried communism ends up. The project elite get to live handsomely while the workers propping it all up see nothing in return. But most open source projects manage to stay more true to the communist ideals of nobody being better off than anyone else, whether they contributed or not.
Re: (Score:2)
The CoC is the final collectivization?
With consolidation of individual projects into a collective project under new CoC?
A Hero of Socialist Labour can only code for computer project for so long before the CoC politics becomes the project.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
For an OSS project to begin to resemble classical Communism, there'd have to be some higher authority assigning projects out of some pool of programmers with no regard to personal preference. You're a programmer, you'll program, but you'll work on the projects the State wants you to work on. That's Communism...
No, that is not. You have clearly no idea about what communism is and, on top of that, you have no idea how so-called communist states worked in the past and work today. Take a look at the soviet film industry for example, they never worked the way you describe.
Re: (Score:2)
Well to be fair, Russia was pretty f*cked up before the communists got their hands on it.
You could make the argument that judging by the extremely low bar rule by aristocratic nobility set, communism in Russia was a huge success for most people.
Anyhgow people use "communism", not to describe an thing, but how they feel about that thing. Communism is a specific ideology, and not everything a communist would approve of is necessarily communist.
Re: Bullshit. (Score:4, Insightful)
From what I can see, they were trying to sell the enterprise team/project management service but it must not have been very appealing.
They are operating in a very niche, well served market and trying to get volunteers to do their work, while other platforms, both open source and commercial, with computer assisted subtitling and translation already does a pretty good job.
They don't bring anything new to the table, the market is saturated and what company doesn't want a different yet-another-project-management-tool for every team.
Re: (Score:2)
There can't a be a "stealth VC," if you're a nonprofit there is no way to convert to for-profit and if you shut down you can only donate the assets to another nonprofit.
If they wanted to do a for-profit startup they'd have to quit, leave behind whatever the nonprofit had built up, and start fresh. They only can bring their experience.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I've seen this first hand, non-profits with complicated and incestuous relationships with for-profits that either they control or are controlled by.
The thing is, while you might be able to create a for-profit subsidiary, you can't create such a thing for the private benefit of any board member or manager. In fact, you theoretically can't run any aspect or your charity for the benefit of anyone on the board or management team.
That doesn't mean there aren't ways. No attorney general wants to be known
Re: (Score:3)
If you set out to write free software with the goal of selling it for profit (instead of the goal being writing good software), you've joined the wrong communist club.
Slashdot and the open source community has spent the last 40 years trying to convince everyone that OpenSource is the right way to develop software and that it's not a communist club but a thriving business.
"Open Source isn't communism, it's good business, look at RedHat! You can sell support contracts and fulfill bounties from the community! Don't be afraid of open source!"
Well, the good news is that this pitch has won. The bad news is that exactly what happened here is happening elsewhere. If you have
Re:Bullshit. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Fuck them, there are plenty of free options:
Aegisub [aegisub.org]
Gaupol [otsaloma.io]
Jubler Subtitle Editor [jubler.org]
Subtitle Edit [nikse.dk]
Subtitle Workshop [sourceforge.net]
VisualSubSync [visualsubsync.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That could in fact be an argument *for* taking the project closed source.
Unless you think closed source *per se* is morally wrong, the main ethical objections to doing so are consequentialist. If your users aren't really dependent on your project, that takes one objection off the table. If you never attracted much developer contribution because you're in crowded space, that's another.
Re: (Score:2)
No great surprise - a lot of projects go this way (Score:2)
With a lot of projects, you sink a considerable amount of time and effort in to them, and while you're happy to do that, often there comes a time when you're dealing with other pressures in life and you make the decision to fork the project, leaving the OpenSource for the rest of the world to take over, an going ahead with your own commercial version.
It's a bit of a reality slap to even the original project people - many of us would love to continue to code but at some point you have to still feed yourself,
GPL contributions... (Score:2)
I wonder what they will be doing with contributions from external developers, which they cannot just close source because they want to...
Perhaps they never really got much in the way of contributions.. but anything they did get would need to be removed and clean room rewritten before they could close the source...
Re: (Score:2)
That's definitely an interesting point, yes. Another reason I prefer to stick to MIT/BSD/X11 type licences.
Wishy washy (Score:5, Interesting)
Their statement doesn't make a lot of sense, it seems to be a bunch of bullshit. First they declare that open source is expensive to develop, then they start blathering about revenue from software. Is it an expense, or revenue generation? They don't seem to have a consistent understanding of what they think about that.
Given that, I'm glad they're closing their source, they appear to be a nonprofit whose entire purpose is to pay the salaries of the employees. One less faker getting in the way of progress.
Project dead anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
In the last 12 months the project has had just a handful of commits and those commits are minor edits to documentation; there have been no implementation related commits for at least a year. Based on the commit history, development stopped 2-3 years ago so... whatever. If it's worth continuing then someone should fork it because the "PCF" aren't doing anything anyhow.
not-for-profit? (Score:1)
Not-for-profit doesn't mean "has no money" (Score:2)
Non-profit means those who founded and run the organization don't get any profit from it. It does NOT mean "has no money". Most non-profits have expenses, buying copy paper if nothing else. Those expenses are paid with money.
They are making a (probably bad) decision in an attempt to protect the source of money they use to pay their expenses of doing something useful for mankind.
Re: (Score:3)
Non-profits also pay salaries to the officers and administrators. Often very exorbitant salaries.
According to their 2017 filings $661k went to salaries for 8 employees. The Director, Aleli Alcala paid himself $160k, so that leaves about $70k average for the other 7.
Re:Not-for-profit doesn't mean "has no money" (Score:4, Informative)
I'll also add that that filing shows $2.4 million in revenue in 2017 with little to no explanation where that money went. $661k in salaries and 1.75 million in other expenses. Lots of ways to hide non-standard compensation in "other expenses". Only $195k was spent on functional expenses.
It also says they had a little over $1 million in assets at the end of 2017 compared to $1.5 million in liabilities, meaning they lost half a million dollars for the year.
https://projects.propublica.or... [propublica.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Taken together with the lack of commits I'd estimate the repository was becoming a liability in fund raising.
Nonprofits start out as a scam or turn into a scam ... that's the sad truth. Too much moral hazard for human beings to handle.
Re: (Score:2)
Most are designed from the start to be a scam unfortunately.
The most blatant that I see every day are those started by professional athletes. Almost all are vehicles to put friends and family on the payroll alongside the huge tax deduction. Athlete A making $tens of millions per year starts a "Foundation" for some generic cause then names the parents, brothers/sisters and other hangers-on to run it for a nice salary. Once a year they'll hold some event, usually a celebrity golf tournament or the like whe
Re: (Score:2)
The whole thing looks like a scam to me. They had plenty of money coming in, nothing to show for it, what was the money going for? 1.7 million for expenses is insane? What the hell is all of that for? If your an efficient nonprofit in this area you should have very few expenses. You might need a part time accountant and lawyer, but it would be unacceptable to spend more than $100,000 per year on those expenses. With over $2 million, thats enough to hire well over 20 programmers, have them work from home dev
Re: (Score:2)
How many conferences (i.e. vacations with VIP perks) did they sponsor? That'd be the first place I'd look. Then look at office rent and who actually owns those properties. I also find the $1.3 million in unsecured note/loan liabilities curious.
Lots of ways to hide fraud with non-profits. That's the norm, not an exception.
NOTE: the filing I linked is 2017. Another failure of non-profit regulation is how they're allowed to wait 1-2 years before filing for a given year. There's no telling what the numbe
Re: (Score:2)
See my comment above. No conferences, no VIP perks, nothing like that at all. Just good people doing good work.
Re: (Score:2)
Amara is the tech but the revenue comes from the crowd sourcing operation, which is where the money comes from and goes to. Originally Amara provided an all volunteer service but businesses requested a paid service for predicability (the results the crowd source group gave were better than the paid alternatives at the time). The PCF contracts with hundreds of independent translators, and provides fair wages for these workers. In fact Amara was featured recently in the book Ghost Work as an example of how t
Re: (Score:2)
Non-profits also pay salaries to the officers and administrators. Often very exorbitant salaries.
According to their 2017 filings $661k went to salaries for 8 employees. The Director, Aleli Alcala paid himself $160k, so that leaves about $70k average for the other 7.
For example, NFL (non-profit from 1942-2015 [nydailynews.com]) commissioner Roger Goodell, whose salary was $32 million in 2015 ($212.5 million during his first 10 years on the job) [forbes.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Captioning and subtitling videos.. (Score:2)
I understand those are necessary for a lot of people, but, it seems like a fairly generic market to me (complete layman).
How hard is it to add a caption stream to a video ? Hello, Google does it dynamically (for free) on YouTube previews.
Seems like a poor idea (or perhaps anachronistic) for generating a reliable revenue stream
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Captioning and subtitling videos.. (Score:2)
Then remove my code, please! (Score:2)
If somebody contributed to the project, how can they ever legally close it down again?
That somebody's code is licensed to them only with an open source license. Which forbids closing that down.
(As is their own code, by the way.)
So they can only close what they add after that version. Not the vase majority.
And I don't see how a project could be *partially* closed.
They would have to re-write the thing basically from scratch, to get something closed-source.
In any case, it is a dick move and morally equivalent
Re: (Score:2)
They presumably had a contributor license agreement that required all contributors to assign the copyright to them. This is pretty common, but also dangerous because you have to trust the organization.
Of course, it all depends on the license. If they'd used something permissive like Apache or MIT, they wouldn't even need that agreement. Those licenses let anyone incorporate the code in proprietary software. But the whole point of choosing a viral license like AGPL is to prevent that from happening, so p
Stated goals (Score:3)
Closing Amara’s source code will help to ensure PCF can support efforts to:
* Offer the collaborative Amara Editor freely and publicly.
* Enable individuals and communities to make socially-enriching video content universally and natively accessible to all.
* Continue to model a more positive path for the future of work.
* Better support grassroots efforts for rare and endangered language revitalization.
* Develop new impact initiatives that enable people to positively impact the information environment that surrounds us all.
I have to say I'm puzzled how closing source code achieves or even facilitates any of those objectives...?
kind of SO WHAT? (Score:3)
Summary makes no mention of what Amara is but emphasizes that it's no longer open source. So kind of hard to have any interest or care. Nothing to be done about whatever it was.
Re: (Score:2)
Came here for this. They failed Journalism 101.
The hard work wasn't the software (Score:2)
So, you have a ton (a ton) of employees that provide "the tool" ?? But the real work is in doing the work. The people that translate and create the subtitles are the value.
Anyway, they got an award and a gigantic grant (huge).... I wish them well, but think they're making a big mistake and don't understand "the true need" and where they could make big money.
In other words (Score:2)
"Another Project Goes Private: Amara Stops Being Developed As Open Source"
In other words, "Thanks for all your hard work in building us a product we can monetize, suckers!"
Looks scammy (Score:3)
This whole operation looks like a scam.
They had plenty of money coming in, nothing to show for it, no code commits. What was the money going for? 1.7 million for expenses is insane! What are the doing, taking trips to Fiji? What the hell is all of that for? If your an efficient nonprofit in this area you should have very few expenses. You might need a part time accountant and lawyer, but it would be unacceptable to spend more than $100,000 per year on those expenses, it should be much much less than that, so that cannot account for these expenses. With over $2 million, thats enough to hire well over 20 programmers, have them work from home developing software,they should have code coming out of their ears. No need for business expenses like office space, desks, etc.
Someone using our OSS code not the way we like... (Score:2)
"Instead, we have unfortunately had firsthand experience with a venture-funded organization deploying code we created and using it in ways that we did not think aligned well with our values...."
Well, they seem to have a problem with the "open" concept of OSS. Maybe they would prefer a license which states "this software can only be used in a way that all contributors agree is ok", where what is a valid use is reevaluated continuously, depending on political climate, contributors mood, activist protests, soc