3 ms·
Well, to be fair to the parent poster (and without going deeper into the merits of this side-argument), I'd note that the expression "pro bono" as generally use
by jamestnz 10y ago
Well, to be fair to the parent poster (and without going deeper into the merits of this side-argument), I'd note that the expression "pro bono" as generally used in English is actually short for "pro bono publico" which does in fact mean "for the public good".
Law firms (and other professional services firms) call it "pro bono" when they use their specific skill-set to provide their services to those (e.g. the indigent) who couldn't otherwise afford them.
In that example, it's the fact that the indigent can get access to quality legal representation which is itself considered the "public good".
- fastball 10y agoI get that. My point about law firms is that most of them won't take pro bono cases all the way to the supreme court (or equivalent). i.e. there is a limit to how much manpower they are will to expend on a charity case. In the same way, expecting Akamai to provide free service to Krebs until the end of time because it was referred to as pro bono (even if it was them, which it wasn't) would be silly. tl;dr - Akamai provided a service that could be seen as publicly beneficial. As long as they were providing free service to Krebs, they were doing something that was arguably pro bono. Them no longer choosing to provide that service does not retroactively detract from its public benefit.