5 ms·

> I guess whether people in general "work for free" depends on how you define "work" and "free". Then allow me to be clear: If you want to do something, and y

by geocar 9y ago

> I guess whether people in general "work for free" depends on how you define "work" and "free". Then allow me to be clear: If you want to do something, and you get some kind of psychic reward for it; like volunteering in a soup kitchen, then that's great. But if you're only doing that because you're afraid of going to hell, then someone has convinced you to work for free. If you make some software, and someone tells you how great it would be if it did different things, and then gets offended when you send them your day-rate, so you do it anyway, then someone has convinced you to work for free. If you've got a more useful definition of "working for free" then I'm happy to hear it, and entertain it, but understand this kind of anathematic servitude is what I'm pointing to: I think these guys who go around trying to convince people that releasing "open source" is somehow "more free" and that "freedom is good" is a little bit like we've always been at war with Eastasia. It doesn't make sense to me: In a twisted sort of way, a slaveowner is more free than a non-slaveowner because they don't have obligations (like to work), but it doesn't make this sort of thing right. Being a slaveowner isn't right even if being free is. > A copy of your software doesn't (necessarily) entail additional work. The nth copy of my software cost 1/n of my time. One way to consider this is as n gets large, the cost goes to zero, but another way to consider it is as n gets large, the value of my time goes to infinity. I'm in the latter category, and perhaps this is confusing becauseI contribute to, and release a fair amount of Free Software. However if the only thing that can approach being worth my time is your time, then you'll see why I can't consider any "open source" license for my own software: I don't work for free.

Jedd 9y ago
Clarity would be ideal. Rather than cite two confused examples of 'work for free', can you please just define 'work'? Then, perhaps, 'free'. The reason a lot of people eschew the phrase 'open source' is because it leads to the kind of confusion manifesting in your last paragraph.
mavhc 9y ago
What if someone paid you to open source it?
fpoling 9y ago
When one contributes to a soup kitchen without getting paid in money, the person still gets a value be it a growing social network, a line in a CV, experience of working and organizing people etc. So it is not a work for free as one does get a value that can be exchanged for other things. Similarly with open source work. It brings a value in forms of contacts and experience.
boomlinde 9y ago
> But if you're only doing that because you're afraid of going to hell, then someone has convinced you to work for free. Then I'd work for the comfort of not believing that I would go to hell. The basis of that belief may be an act of deceit, though, which I am not sure is relevant for open source software. The licenses are clear, and no one is promising anything magically wonderful or terrible to happen depending on my engagement in it. If they do and I bite, maybe I am dumb. > If you make some software, and someone tells you how great it would be if it did different things, and then gets offended when you send them your day-rate, so you do it anyway, then someone has convinced you to work for free. No, they have freed themselves from the responsibility of paying me for the work, clearly making it my problem. I then decide myself whether to do it based on what I gain from it. Maybe they convinced me to do it, but whether I'd do it for free is ultimately a matter of how I personally value the work. > If you've got a more useful definition of "working for free" then I'm happy to hear it, and entertain it Making an effort to achieve a result without gaining something from it? The only reason I could see myself working for free in this sense is if someone forces me to do it. > I think these guys who go around trying to convince people that releasing "open source" is somehow "more free" and that "freedom is good" is a little bit like we've always been at war with Eastasia. It doesn't make sense to me: In a twisted sort of way, a slaveowner is more free than a non-slaveowner because they don't have obligations (like to work), but it doesn't make this sort of thing right. Being a slaveowner isn't right even if being free is. "Open source" is not "more free" in any general sense. It just means that the source is available for free use and distribution. It doesn't necessarily make you more free, nor does it make anyone that is subject to whatever malicious purpose the software might serve more free. It frees the user of the software from a tiny set of specific obligations normally associated with licensing a copyright protected work. Those other things may be important but not at all what the BSD license concerns. Let the Intel-MINIX debacle be a lesson in the total orthogonality of freedom in general and free use of a piece of software. > The nth copy of my software cost 1/n of my time. No, it comes at no cost to you if you. Developing the software costs you time. That you reimburse yourself for the time it takes you to develop the software by charging for copies of it is an arbitrary choice, not an inherent relationship between the time spent and the number of copies made. If you were chopping wood, it might be a different matter, but with software, the time is spent on producing it, and selling a copy of piece of software doesn't mean you can't sell it again. The money you receive for a copy of a piece of software is rent. Tanenbaum makes a great example of this. He is being paid for his work, yet the software is open source. He is not being paid for copies. Another good example is that of a simple employee. I get paid a monthly salary for performing a day job. Like Tanenbaum, I might get much less value out of it than the users of the software (or whoever is selling it) do, but I certainly don't work for free. I get paid for my effort and time, not for copies.

by geocar 9y ago

Jedd 9y ago

Clarity would be ideal. Rather than cite two confused examples of 'work for free', can you please just define 'work'? Then, perhaps, 'free'. The reason a lot of people eschew the phrase 'open source' is because it leads to the kind of confusion manifesting in your last paragraph.

mavhc 9y ago

What if someone paid you to open source it?

fpoling 9y ago

When one contributes to a soup kitchen without getting paid in money, the person still gets a value be it a growing social network, a line in a CV, experience of working and organizing people etc. So it is not a work for free as one does get a value that can be exchanged for other things. Similarly with open source work. It brings a value in forms of contacts and experience.

boomlinde 9y ago

> But if you're only doing that because you're afraid of going to hell, then someone has convinced you to work for free. Then I'd work for the comfort of not believing that I would go to hell. The basis of that belief may be an act of deceit, though, which I am not sure is relevant for open source software. The licenses are clear, and no one is promising anything magically wonderful or terrible to happen depending on my engagement in it. If they do and I bite, maybe I am dumb. > If you make some software, and someone tells you how great it would be if it did different things, and then gets offended when you send them your day-rate, so you do it anyway, then someone has convinced you to work for free. No, they have freed themselves from the responsibility of paying me for the work, clearly making it my problem. I then decide myself whether to do it based on what I gain from it. Maybe they convinced me to do it, but whether I'd do it for free is ultimately a matter of how I personally value the work. > If you've got a more useful definition of "working for free" then I'm happy to hear it, and entertain it Making an effort to achieve a result without gaining something from it? The only reason I could see myself working for free in this sense is if someone forces me to do it. > I think these guys who go around trying to convince people that releasing "open source" is somehow "more free" and that "freedom is good" is a little bit like we've always been at war with Eastasia. It doesn't make sense to me: In a twisted sort of way, a slaveowner is more free than a non-slaveowner because they don't have obligations (like to work), but it doesn't make this sort of thing right. Being a slaveowner isn't right even if being free is. "Open source" is not "more free" in any general sense. It just means that the source is available for free use and distribution. It doesn't necessarily make you more free, nor does it make anyone that is subject to whatever malicious purpose the software might serve more free. It frees the user of the software from a tiny set of specific obligations normally associated with licensing a copyright protected work. Those other things may be important but not at all what the BSD license concerns. Let the Intel-MINIX debacle be a lesson in the total orthogonality of freedom in general and free use of a piece of software. > The nth copy of my software cost 1/n of my time. No, it comes at no cost to you if you. Developing the software costs you time. That you reimburse yourself for the time it takes you to develop the software by charging for copies of it is an arbitrary choice, not an inherent relationship between the time spent and the number of copies made. If you were chopping wood, it might be a different matter, but with software, the time is spent on producing it, and selling a copy of piece of software doesn't mean you can't sell it again. The money you receive for a copy of a piece of software is rent. Tanenbaum makes a great example of this. He is being paid for his work, yet the software is open source. He is not being paid for copies. Another good example is that of a simple employee. I get paid a monthly salary for performing a day job. Like Tanenbaum, I might get much less value out of it than the users of the software (or whoever is selling it) do, but I certainly don't work for free. I get paid for my effort and time, not for copies.