6 ms·

Charging money to fix something because of who they are seems unethical to me... Maybe it's just capitalism, which is usually antithetical to open source free s

by gitgud 7y ago

Charging money to fix something because of who they are seems unethical to me... Maybe it's just capitalism, which is usually antithetical to open source free software... If they want it fixed, let them add resources to the project like submit a pull request, donations or charge people support fees for urgent bugs, which many OSS projects do...

Nasrudith 7y ago
Well at that point it isn't buying for getting it fixed but for attention and fast response. Anyone else could just do the fix themselves and submit it. The lack of gatekeeping is what keeps it ethical essentially - like the difference between "only Apple technicians" and "anyone capable".
- tempWinHater 7y ago
  I would also add that "Apple technicians" is not a subset of "anyone capable".
ClumsyPilot 7y ago
Opensource projects have long lists of issues, some of them stay open for years. I presume cormpanies want it addressed quickly
cortesoft 7y ago
This isn't paying because of who they are, this is paying to be prioritized outside the normal process. They are 'adding resources to the project', in the form of money (which will hopefully draw in more developer time, another resource)
rhizome 7y ago
Charging money to fix something because of who they are seems unethical to me First of all, I believe that everything people do is according to some ethic, or set of criteria that motivates them, so there's no such thing as "unethical." Secondly, it's not charging money because of who they are, it's charging them because of what they have, which is money, which is a desire to have a bug fixed, and which is not expertise in doing so. Thirdly, charging money like this is not antithetical to free software, and as a matter of fact is promoted by FSF. Here they are dispensing with your argument in the first sentence: [1] Fourthly, if they were going to submit a PR they would already be doing so (and maybe they have), but as the story goes, the lion's share of coding is performed by Stenberg. PR's are free and money is also a resource. Why not put the resource in the place with the most expertise? In what way is the money I suggest not a donation or support fee? Lack of contracts to complicate things? Lack of tax writeoffs? These companies don't pay taxes anyway. 1. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
- gitgud 7y ago
  > First of all, I believe that everything people do is according to some ethic, or set of criteria that motivates them, so there's no such thing as "unethical." OK, that's one way to look at it. In that case I mean bad ethics... > Secondly, it's not charging money because of who they are, it's charging them because of what they have, which is money, which is a desire to have a bug fixed, and which is not expertise in doing so. That sounds reasonable and is similar to taxing the rich I suppose, but to me it's discrimination on WHO you are. > Thirdly, charging money like this is not antithetical to free software, and as a matter of fact is promoted by FSF. Here they are dispensing with your argument in the first sentence: That's their opinion, my opinion is that charging money for open source software (usage, support) usually results in bad incentives for the people controlling the software (more bugs = more money), which is bad for the consumers of the software. Allow people to contribute money/resources to the project if they want/need, is the best for everyone. > These companies don't pay taxes anyway. True, but a whole other issue.
flukus 7y ago
> Charging money to fix something because of who they are seems unethical to me Are you aware of how much price discrimination these corporations do to everyone (including yourself) every single day? Most stuff we buy everyday, including the name brand generic stuff, is priced at what we will spend and is completely divorced from any kind of cost to produce. You will be charged more if you live in a wealthy area, you will be charged more just for living in a developed country, you will be charged more for shopping at certain times of day, you will be charged more because advertising manipulated you. It's unethical, but giving them a taste of their own medicine isn't.

by gitgud 7y ago

Nasrudith 7y ago

Well at that point it isn't buying for getting it fixed but for attention and fast response. Anyone else could just do the fix themselves and submit it. The lack of gatekeeping is what keeps it ethical essentially - like the difference between "only Apple technicians" and "anyone capable".

tempWinHater 7y ago
I would also add that "Apple technicians" is not a subset of "anyone capable".

ClumsyPilot 7y ago

Opensource projects have long lists of issues, some of them stay open for years. I presume cormpanies want it addressed quickly

cortesoft 7y ago

This isn't paying because of who they are, this is paying to be prioritized outside the normal process. They are 'adding resources to the project', in the form of money (which will hopefully draw in more developer time, another resource)

rhizome 7y ago

Charging money to fix something because of who they are seems unethical to me First of all, I believe that everything people do is according to some ethic, or set of criteria that motivates them, so there's no such thing as "unethical." Secondly, it's not charging money because of who they are, it's charging them because of what they have, which is money, which is a desire to have a bug fixed, and which is not expertise in doing so. Thirdly, charging money like this is not antithetical to free software, and as a matter of fact is promoted by FSF. Here they are dispensing with your argument in the first sentence: [1] Fourthly, if they were going to submit a PR they would already be doing so (and maybe they have), but as the story goes, the lion's share of coding is performed by Stenberg. PR's are free and money is also a resource. Why not put the resource in the place with the most expertise? In what way is the money I suggest not a donation or support fee? Lack of contracts to complicate things? Lack of tax writeoffs? These companies don't pay taxes anyway. 1. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

gitgud 7y ago
> First of all, I believe that everything people do is according to some ethic, or set of criteria that motivates them, so there's no such thing as "unethical." OK, that's one way to look at it. In that case I mean bad ethics... > Secondly, it's not charging money because of who they are, it's charging them because of what they have, which is money, which is a desire to have a bug fixed, and which is not expertise in doing so. That sounds reasonable and is similar to taxing the rich I suppose, but to me it's discrimination on WHO you are. > Thirdly, charging money like this is not antithetical to free software, and as a matter of fact is promoted by FSF. Here they are dispensing with your argument in the first sentence: That's their opinion, my opinion is that charging money for open source software (usage, support) usually results in bad incentives for the people controlling the software (more bugs = more money), which is bad for the consumers of the software. Allow people to contribute money/resources to the project if they want/need, is the best for everyone. > These companies don't pay taxes anyway. True, but a whole other issue.

flukus 7y ago

> Charging money to fix something because of who they are seems unethical to me Are you aware of how much price discrimination these corporations do to everyone (including yourself) every single day? Most stuff we buy everyday, including the name brand generic stuff, is priced at what we will spend and is completely divorced from any kind of cost to produce. You will be charged more if you live in a wealthy area, you will be charged more just for living in a developed country, you will be charged more for shopping at certain times of day, you will be charged more because advertising manipulated you. It's unethical, but giving them a taste of their own medicine isn't.