3 ms·

this. Most of us encounter problems i.e. bugs, software we wish existed but doesn't - and then solve them through programming. We'd like to see the solutions ge

this. Most of us encounter problems i.e. bugs, software we wish existed but doesn't - and then solve them through programming. We'd like to see the solutions get out and help other people too if they care to be helped, but I don't think that's a major motivating factor for many of us (not me at least). Maybe I'm a grumpy old man at this point, but this whole post just felt to me like a distasteful marketing ploy which goes against the whole sentiment of open source IMHO, which is to solve problems share your solutions and let everyone do what they want with it - not to try to get X followers or foster the biggest community around a new slideshow plugin you just built.

52-6F-62 9y ago
> not to try to get X followers or foster the biggest community around a new slideshow plugin you just built. I've run into this in interview questions in the wild. "So what open-source projects do you contribute to?" It's of course totally their prerogative if they prefer OSS contributors, but it wasn't a stated prerequisite to applying. I loosely compare it to the points and review systems that are being pumped up to gauge one's worth in various freelance portals, etc. The gamification of everything. I can't say I'm a huge fan of that progression, but then I've never liked the zero-sum game worldview. I work for a company that has some lines regarding IP ownership over content produced while in their employ, so any public contributions have to be unrelated to work that I do professionally, and the line is quite fuzzy as to where this ends and begins. Freelancing in software outside of my direct industry—generally fine, as long as its not fulfilling a service the company offers on some level and its not a competitor, or of advantage to a competitor. Publishing code that has benefitted the company is a grey area I'd rather not stray into. Therefore, I haven't contributed. We fork open source software (licenses permitting), and don't file pull requests. I've advocated for adjusting policies to play a larger role on the OSS community as part of larger new initiatives for both the improved reputation as communal contributors and for the benefits of increased mindshare, but to no avail.
thomastjeffery 9y ago
> against the whole sentiment of open source So the sentiment of "open source" is to tell people not to contribute to it? I say no. If, for any reason, someone wants to contribute to free software, they are free to do so. That is very much the point of a free software license. Our biggest advantage is that we can welcome anyone into our community.
- jfaucett 9y ago
  Theres a world of ideas between talking about motivations for doing OSS and telling people not to contribute to OSS. As pertains to what you're saying we completely agree.
watwut 9y ago
I don't think open source was historically about simply sharing solutions. That is how it is for some people, but not really whole sentiment. First, if it would be just that, there would be much less complains about "freeloading". And part of motivation may be that people were convinced that freeloading is bad, but don't know how to not freeload. The whole free software branch is all political, ideological with its own attempts to push for its own morals. I remember when quite a few people at school were arguing that writing close source is somehow bad ethically or that open source programmers are by definition better then all weak and bad close source programmers. Stallman action was essentially political with a lot of heat targeted at perceived enemies. He was angry that licenses prevented him to do what he wanted. There was very clear political goal. If it would be about sharing, things could have been much calmer. Difference between FLOSS and FOSS would not matter either. Large projects and communities have more then just wish to share behind them. It is too much work and effort to organize and keep them for it to happen randomly.

52-6F-62 9y ago

> not to try to get X followers or foster the biggest community around a new slideshow plugin you just built. I've run into this in interview questions in the wild. "So what open-source projects do you contribute to?" It's of course totally their prerogative if they prefer OSS contributors, but it wasn't a stated prerequisite to applying. I loosely compare it to the points and review systems that are being pumped up to gauge one's worth in various freelance portals, etc. The gamification of everything. I can't say I'm a huge fan of that progression, but then I've never liked the zero-sum game worldview. I work for a company that has some lines regarding IP ownership over content produced while in their employ, so any public contributions have to be unrelated to work that I do professionally, and the line is quite fuzzy as to where this ends and begins. Freelancing in software outside of my direct industry—generally fine, as long as its not fulfilling a service the company offers on some level and its not a competitor, or of advantage to a competitor. Publishing code that has benefitted the company is a grey area I'd rather not stray into. Therefore, I haven't contributed. We fork open source software (licenses permitting), and don't file pull requests. I've advocated for adjusting policies to play a larger role on the OSS community as part of larger new initiatives for both the improved reputation as communal contributors and for the benefits of increased mindshare, but to no avail.

thomastjeffery 9y ago

> against the whole sentiment of open source So the sentiment of "open source" is to tell people not to contribute to it? I say no. If, for any reason, someone wants to contribute to free software, they are free to do so. That is very much the point of a free software license. Our biggest advantage is that we can welcome anyone into our community.

jfaucett 9y ago
Theres a world of ideas between talking about motivations for doing OSS and telling people not to contribute to OSS. As pertains to what you're saying we completely agree.

watwut 9y ago

I don't think open source was historically about simply sharing solutions. That is how it is for some people, but not really whole sentiment. First, if it would be just that, there would be much less complains about "freeloading". And part of motivation may be that people were convinced that freeloading is bad, but don't know how to not freeload. The whole free software branch is all political, ideological with its own attempts to push for its own morals. I remember when quite a few people at school were arguing that writing close source is somehow bad ethically or that open source programmers are by definition better then all weak and bad close source programmers. Stallman action was essentially political with a lot of heat targeted at perceived enemies. He was angry that licenses prevented him to do what he wanted. There was very clear political goal. If it would be about sharing, things could have been much calmer. Difference between FLOSS and FOSS would not matter either. Large projects and communities have more then just wish to share behind them. It is too much work and effort to organize and keep them for it to happen randomly.