4 ms·

There's nothing unfair about that situation though. People using open source without giving back, and possibly even making money on it without giving back, is p

by mwfunk 10y ago

There's nothing unfair about that situation though. People using open source without giving back, and possibly even making money on it without giving back, is perfectly fine. There's no contract, social or otherwise (aside from the license terms), and the perception that there is a unofficial social contract obligating users to contribute back or even do stuff like just file bugs or interact with the community is actually an impediment to getting people to use open source. This concept of a social contract misrepresents both the letter and the spirit of open source, including copyleft, and gives people who don't know any better the impression that using open source would obligate to do something beyond just complying with the license (even if it's presented as a matter of etiquette rather than an actual legal obligation). If anyone's out there writing open source code because they anticipate getting anything in return from anybody, ever, for their efforts, they have misunderstood the spirit of the thing and will most likely be disappointed.

vacri 10y ago
> This concept of a social contract misrepresents both the letter and the spirit of open source, including copyleft Eh? The GPL is a copyleft license that was made to do just this, both in letter and in spirit. "Getting code back" is its explicit purpose. > If anyone's out there writing open source code because they anticipate getting anything in return from anybody, ever, for their efforts, they have misunderstood the spirit of the thing and will most likely be disappointed. Open Source and Free Software are similar but different, and you're conflating the two. Redhat is the canonical example of someone who writes FOSS because they anticipate getting stuff for it. Atlassian also writes specifically open-source stuff; you can inspect it, but you can't use it without paying a license. And I think you're semantically wrong anyway - if you're writing free software because you're community-minded, then it's not unreasonable to expect some engagement from the community, especially for a popular project. No-one is legally obligated to help you, but at the same time, for so many to use your stuff and so few to kick a little back over so many years is something that a reasonable person could be a bit sour on.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > if you're writing free software because you're community-minded, then it's not unreasonable to expect some engagement from the community Yes it is. Just because you are 'community-minded' doesn't mean you get that - there is no expectation there unless explicitly warranted.
  - vacri 10y ago
    I guess we have different ideas on what makes a community. When I go to a local community barbeque, I hang out and chat as I graze on the food. Apparently you just silently shovel half the sausages into a knapsack, grab a pitcher of drink, and just fuck off without acknowledging anyone. Hey, the food was free, so why should they expect some social interaction, right? I mean, there wasn't a sign up saying "For every sausage, you must spend 5 minutes chatting", so it's not it's expected (or explicitly warranted), right?
    - clort 10y ago
      I don't think your analogy works, quite. Principally, the food is a scarce resource whereas the equivalent to software would be where the community were competing amongst themselves to make a single great sausage; that sausage would be placed on a table by the kerb and people outside would be able to take away as many molecularly identical copies of the sausage as they provided energy to create. The community can socialise amongst themselves and you are free to join in but there is no requirement to do so.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        > the community were competing amongst themselves to make a single great sausage I think a great idea was just born! #sausagecoldwar
      - vacri 10y ago
        However, maintaining a project over the course of years is not effortless on the part of the provider, as explicitly stated in the article. The problem isn't in the software itself being duplicated, it's in the labour around providing the service. To continue with the (now tortured) bbq analogy: as the sausages go cold (=software ages), someone has to cook up more fresh ones.

by mwfunk 10y ago

vacri 10y ago

> This concept of a social contract misrepresents both the letter and the spirit of open source, including copyleft Eh? The GPL is a copyleft license that was made to do just this, both in letter and in spirit. "Getting code back" is its explicit purpose. > If anyone's out there writing open source code because they anticipate getting anything in return from anybody, ever, for their efforts, they have misunderstood the spirit of the thing and will most likely be disappointed. Open Source and Free Software are similar but different, and you're conflating the two. Redhat is the canonical example of someone who writes FOSS because they anticipate getting stuff for it. Atlassian also writes specifically open-source stuff; you can inspect it, but you can't use it without paying a license. And I think you're semantically wrong anyway - if you're writing free software because you're community-minded, then it's not unreasonable to expect some engagement from the community, especially for a popular project. No-one is legally obligated to help you, but at the same time, for so many to use your stuff and so few to kick a little back over so many years is something that a reasonable person could be a bit sour on.

Chris2048 10y ago
> if you're writing free software because you're community-minded, then it's not unreasonable to expect some engagement from the community Yes it is. Just because you are 'community-minded' doesn't mean you get that - there is no expectation there unless explicitly warranted.
- vacri 10y ago
  I guess we have different ideas on what makes a community. When I go to a local community barbeque, I hang out and chat as I graze on the food. Apparently you just silently shovel half the sausages into a knapsack, grab a pitcher of drink, and just fuck off without acknowledging anyone. Hey, the food was free, so why should they expect some social interaction, right? I mean, there wasn't a sign up saying "For every sausage, you must spend 5 minutes chatting", so it's not it's expected (or explicitly warranted), right?
  - clort 10y ago
    I don't think your analogy works, quite. Principally, the food is a scarce resource whereas the equivalent to software would be where the community were competing amongst themselves to make a single great sausage; that sausage would be placed on a table by the kerb and people outside would be able to take away as many molecularly identical copies of the sausage as they provided energy to create. The community can socialise amongst themselves and you are free to join in but there is no requirement to do so.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > the community were competing amongst themselves to make a single great sausage I think a great idea was just born! #sausagecoldwar
    - vacri 10y ago
      However, maintaining a project over the course of years is not effortless on the part of the provider, as explicitly stated in the article. The problem isn't in the software itself being duplicated, it's in the labour around providing the service. To continue with the (now tortured) bbq analogy: as the sausages go cold (=software ages), someone has to cook up more fresh ones.