3 ms·

> In other words, he wants the (extremely large) benefits of an open source project but doesn't want to waste his time on those that don't have value to him. N

> In other words, he wants the (extremely large) benefits of an open source project but doesn't want to waste his time on those that don't have value to him. No, he benefits millions of users and is intentionally not taking "the (extremely large) benefits of an open source project" by stating he hasn't the time to deal with outside input. If the source was closed and people could just use the (free) website nobody would care but since its open source he suddenly owes the world something?

bachmeier 7y ago
> No, he benefits millions of users and is intentionally not taking "the (extremely large) benefits of an open source project" by stating he hasn't the time to deal with outside input. I have no idea what this means. He wrote in his post that he does it for his benefit, and that he ignores most people because it doesn't benefit him to respond. > If the source was closed and people could just use the (free) website nobody would care but since its open source he suddenly owes the world something? Ignoring sincere communication has nothing to do with a software license. That's being a jerk. The choice of software license doesn't give you a right to be a jerk. This is yet another one of those situations where someone is well known in the open source world and his fans think that excuses being an asshole.
- pgeorgi 7y ago
  > He wrote in his post that he does it for his benefit He benefits from the software existing. He benefits from deriving a paper or two from running the platform. Neither has to do with it being open source. The open source aspect benefits users only. > The choice of software license doesn't give you a right to be a jerk. It doesn't give anybody the right to contact the author, either. Since "jerk" in this context means "not responding to sincere communication": if you send a sincere email to the CEO of IBM because you have proposals on how to improve SPSS (a tool that, as economist and professor, you're certainly familiar with), do you expect a substantial answer that isn't driven by the CEO's extensive staff and PR department? Give that man a secretary and PR department and I'm sure he'll answer all communication.

bachmeier 7y ago

> No, he benefits millions of users and is intentionally not taking "the (extremely large) benefits of an open source project" by stating he hasn't the time to deal with outside input. I have no idea what this means. He wrote in his post that he does it for his benefit, and that he ignores most people because it doesn't benefit him to respond. > If the source was closed and people could just use the (free) website nobody would care but since its open source he suddenly owes the world something? Ignoring sincere communication has nothing to do with a software license. That's being a jerk. The choice of software license doesn't give you a right to be a jerk. This is yet another one of those situations where someone is well known in the open source world and his fans think that excuses being an asshole.

pgeorgi 7y ago
> He wrote in his post that he does it for his benefit He benefits from the software existing. He benefits from deriving a paper or two from running the platform. Neither has to do with it being open source. The open source aspect benefits users only. > The choice of software license doesn't give you a right to be a jerk. It doesn't give anybody the right to contact the author, either. Since "jerk" in this context means "not responding to sincere communication": if you send a sincere email to the CEO of IBM because you have proposals on how to improve SPSS (a tool that, as economist and professor, you're certainly familiar with), do you expect a substantial answer that isn't driven by the CEO's extensive staff and PR department? Give that man a secretary and PR department and I'm sure he'll answer all communication.