5 ms·

I find that opinion, is not so much unpopular rather it might be that it arises from approaching the the question with a different set of parameters. I am one

I find that opinion, is not so much unpopular rather it might be that it arises from approaching the the question with a different set of parameters. I am one of those people who write software for fun. I'm guessing I'm wired to get a dopamine rush from solving an interesting programming challenge the same way that someone doing the NY Times crossword puzzle is when they get all the words. Nobody claims that someone who spends hours doing crossword puzzles over the year is an underpaid crossword puzzle solver. So when people have do things for themselves, perhaps their compensation is in the doing. But when someone else decides to use some open source software, they are in a different place. They are using it as a tool that gives them value. Using our crossword solving problem; the person who gets a copy of the puzzle solver's answers and just fills in the squares is a user not a developer. This is where the open source contract breaks down, because you can get user's who file issues to be fixed but supply no money or manpower to fix them. And the people who are writing the software because they enjoy writing software, may have no interest in your particular interest, it might bring them no joy at all to work on it, so they don't. And in that gap, you get CVEs where an issue results in security problem for the tool user, but you don't have anyone able (or perhaps willing) to stop what ever they are doing and work on it. Could you imagine a person demanding someone figure out the word for 18 down "right now" because their other project needed that work to continue? I would be interested in seeing an open source license that made the software free to use for anyone who contributed at least one fix or one feature to the code each year, but cost $10,000/year to license to use if you chose not to contribute any fixes or features. I don't think you need to restrict it to features or fixes that eventually get integrated just contributed and could be integrated (pass all CI/CD requirements). The reason there is the user would end up having to pay a software developer, perhaps part time, to come up with those features/fixes and presumably that would cost more than the $10,000/year. My point is that without a way to tie the economic value of using the software back into its development cost (in order to pay people to do the grunge work that often nobody wants to do) you end up with imbalanced value equations like the ones we have today where you can't charge for the source code to people who just want to exploit it and add value in their own products that they keep.

andrey_utkin 7y ago
> you can get user's who file issues to be fixed but supply no money or manpower to fix them And then maintainer responds, "not on my roadmap, but patch would be welcome". > And in that gap, you get CVEs where an issue results in security problem for the tool user, but you don't have anyone able (or perhaps willing) to stop what ever they are doing and work on it. About time for idle users to step up and invest into their own security, right? > free to use for anyone who contributed at least one fix or one feature Sure, screw software freedoms, let's build unenforceable licenses with perverse incentives, driving NIH behaviour and contributions for sake of the fact of the contribution. Free software is doing fine (and this gets better as mankind gets wealthier), thank you. Please don't contemplate force-feeding it.
- ChuckMcM 7y ago
  > Free software is doing fine (and this gets better as mankind gets wealthier), thank you. Please don't contemplate force-feeding it. Respectfully, if you read the linked article here, or the stories of people who maintain key infrastructure going broke[1], those pieces conclude exactly the opposite. They conclude that "free software" is not doing fine at all. Rather free software not benefiting at all from the wealth of the corporations exploiting it to their bottom line. [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/the-worlds-email-encryption-software-relies-on-one-guy-who-is-going-broke https://www.propublica.org/article/the-worlds-email-encrypti...
  - andrey_utkin 7y ago
    There are other people contributing lots to GnuPG and alternatives. GnuPG development receives thousands of euro in donations every month. Werner also seems to run a commercial company around GnuPG, hope it is doing well. Doesn't seem as tragic as "The World's Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who is Going Broke", did i miss something? FOSS authors shouldn't tie their destiny to a project they like to work on. It quickly gets ugly, one example being Eric Raymond, who took the stance that he will work on whatever he feels like, "because it has to be me who is doing it", dismissing loads of people saying "get a job and stop punishing yourself and your family". But still his supporters back him to some extent via Patreon. You can follow your passion, but who's to blame if you don't maintain the balance? If you have a kid to raise, but you'd rather hack on free software all the time instead, are you eligible for free childminders and nursery just because? Can you be doing whatever you feel like, have no obligations to anyone, and expect to have a decent living?

andrey_utkin 7y ago

> you can get user's who file issues to be fixed but supply no money or manpower to fix them And then maintainer responds, "not on my roadmap, but patch would be welcome". > And in that gap, you get CVEs where an issue results in security problem for the tool user, but you don't have anyone able (or perhaps willing) to stop what ever they are doing and work on it. About time for idle users to step up and invest into their own security, right? > free to use for anyone who contributed at least one fix or one feature Sure, screw software freedoms, let's build unenforceable licenses with perverse incentives, driving NIH behaviour and contributions for sake of the fact of the contribution. Free software is doing fine (and this gets better as mankind gets wealthier), thank you. Please don't contemplate force-feeding it.

ChuckMcM 7y ago
> Free software is doing fine (and this gets better as mankind gets wealthier), thank you. Please don't contemplate force-feeding it. Respectfully, if you read the linked article here, or the stories of people who maintain key infrastructure going broke[1], those pieces conclude exactly the opposite. They conclude that "free software" is not doing fine at all. Rather free software not benefiting at all from the wealth of the corporations exploiting it to their bottom line. [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/the-worlds-email-encryption-software-relies-on-one-guy-who-is-going-broke https://www.propublica.org/article/the-worlds-email-encrypti...
- andrey_utkin 7y ago
  There are other people contributing lots to GnuPG and alternatives. GnuPG development receives thousands of euro in donations every month. Werner also seems to run a commercial company around GnuPG, hope it is doing well. Doesn't seem as tragic as "The World's Email Encryption Software Relies on One Guy, Who is Going Broke", did i miss something? FOSS authors shouldn't tie their destiny to a project they like to work on. It quickly gets ugly, one example being Eric Raymond, who took the stance that he will work on whatever he feels like, "because it has to be me who is doing it", dismissing loads of people saying "get a job and stop punishing yourself and your family". But still his supporters back him to some extent via Patreon. You can follow your passion, but who's to blame if you don't maintain the balance? If you have a kid to raise, but you'd rather hack on free software all the time instead, are you eligible for free childminders and nursery just because? Can you be doing whatever you feel like, have no obligations to anyone, and expect to have a decent living?