3 ms·

> 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

> 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?
  - ChuckMcM 7y ago
    Ok, I can understand your argument, which if I restate it is this; "There are free software projects that are explicitly set up to support the developers, so the burden is on the developer to set up such a system, not on the users to find a way to support the developers." Would you agree with that restatement? Did I understand you correctly? Where I am is in an interesting subsection of the entire solution space of "free software". Consider your statement: > Can you be doing whatever you feel like, have no obligations to anyone, and expect to have a decent living? On the surface, the answer to that question is no. Because of the expectations aspect. But phrase it a bit differently and we get to where I am; "Can you be doing whatever you feel like, and one or more companies are making millions in revenue based on products made possible by what you are working on, and expect to have a decent living?"
    - andrey_utkin 7y ago
      I completely don't understand what you said about burden on developers to set up some system. > "Can you be doing whatever you feel like, and one or more companies are making millions in revenue based on products made possible by what you are working on, and expect to have a decent living?" Still no. There are few good reasons to contribute to open source, and they are nothing about profits other users make, because the process and the product are rewarding to the contributor. Now there are some bad reasons to contribute to open source, where the motivation is perverse, the situation looks distastrous, and only these cases would take advantage from any such policing, subsidizing, taxing, wealth redistribution. Does that person do the work to use the product themselves? Then such external factors don't matter, the person extracts the value they intended to have. Does that person do the work to meet interesting challenges, mess with smart people, and have fun? Obviously it's nothing about getting money from other users. Does that person do the work to promote themselves in careers? Other users matter only as big or numerous names, not as revenue. Does that person do the work with the only outcome being the profit for companies which the person expects to pay back, while putting on work under the license which does not require users to pay at all? Or, in addition to that, they bring a FOSS product to the market, profit from providing value-add services to that, but get broke because someone else starts to provide similar value-add services with their product, all being legal? Your thoughts are completely about these people, and these people have really perverse motives from the outset.

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?
- ChuckMcM 7y ago
  Ok, I can understand your argument, which if I restate it is this; "There are free software projects that are explicitly set up to support the developers, so the burden is on the developer to set up such a system, not on the users to find a way to support the developers." Would you agree with that restatement? Did I understand you correctly? Where I am is in an interesting subsection of the entire solution space of "free software". Consider your statement: > Can you be doing whatever you feel like, have no obligations to anyone, and expect to have a decent living? On the surface, the answer to that question is no. Because of the expectations aspect. But phrase it a bit differently and we get to where I am; "Can you be doing whatever you feel like, and one or more companies are making millions in revenue based on products made possible by what you are working on, and expect to have a decent living?"
  - andrey_utkin 7y ago
    I completely don't understand what you said about burden on developers to set up some system. > "Can you be doing whatever you feel like, and one or more companies are making millions in revenue based on products made possible by what you are working on, and expect to have a decent living?" Still no. There are few good reasons to contribute to open source, and they are nothing about profits other users make, because the process and the product are rewarding to the contributor. Now there are some bad reasons to contribute to open source, where the motivation is perverse, the situation looks distastrous, and only these cases would take advantage from any such policing, subsidizing, taxing, wealth redistribution. Does that person do the work to use the product themselves? Then such external factors don't matter, the person extracts the value they intended to have. Does that person do the work to meet interesting challenges, mess with smart people, and have fun? Obviously it's nothing about getting money from other users. Does that person do the work to promote themselves in careers? Other users matter only as big or numerous names, not as revenue. Does that person do the work with the only outcome being the profit for companies which the person expects to pay back, while putting on work under the license which does not require users to pay at all? Or, in addition to that, they bring a FOSS product to the market, profit from providing value-add services to that, but get broke because someone else starts to provide similar value-add services with their product, all being legal? Your thoughts are completely about these people, and these people have really perverse motives from the outset.