4 ms·
In open source you give and take. The actix author almost certainly (unless they deploy their own kernel) has profited immensely from other peoples work. This i
by j-pb 7y ago
In open source you give and take. The actix author almost certainly (unless they deploy their own kernel) has profited immensely from other peoples work. This is because as a community we have realized that we don't sell libraries, we sell stuff build with them, so we all win when we share.
It is your choice to use open source software without open sourcing your own work or without contributing.
But by engaging in open source you engage in a social contract, you become part of a community whose goal it is to foster collaboration and help one another, other people start to rely on you, just as you rely on their libraries, compilers, and kernels.
The author choose to break that social contract out of spite. He created a scenario where people choose to rely on him, when they could have relied on other works, and then screwed them over majorly.
- siscia 7y agoDude, sorry to break this to you! But basically any widely used software is supported by major companies just to avoid this problem. Libraries, compilers and kernels alike. If you want to rely on software being there, you should be ready to pay for people to support it. > This is because as a community we have realized that we don't sell libraries, we sell stuff build with them, so we all win when we share. It is clear to me that is not true anymore. It is really hard to find open source project without clear direct financial incentives. Again, as a community, we should start to pay for the components we use.
- j-pb 7y agoCompanies should contribute their fair share by supporting open sources projects monetarily, definitely! But that is a different issue, from the behavioral standards we as a community uphold implicitly, and which are broken by pulling a "left-pad" incident.
- siscia 7y agoI believe we should not demand free work from people only because they were nice enough to push their code on GitHub and let stranger use it for free. I work in open source as well at both day job and for "fun" but I fix the issue that I want and if people want something from me as author of whatever, there is going to be a money talk.
- j-pb 7y agoTo take the metaphor from a different user on this topic: "Its completely ok to not hold the door open for someone, but its extremely impolite to drop them into their face." The author created a project and advertised it to people, if they don't want to maintain it anymore, sure, no problem. But deleting it to spite others is considered a d* move.
- dangerface 7y ago> has profited immensely from other peoples work Have they? how much $$$ profit did they make? You aren't paying for shit and yet you think they are making a profit and you are entitled to professional support? Wise up.
- j-pb 7y agoMaking a profit != profiting. I profit from Clojure, Python and the linux kernel. Doesn't mean I habe an income from their existence. Nobody is arguing about professional support, but advertising a project and then deleting the entire thing to spite people is a jerk move. Ready up!
- dangerface 7y ago> Making a profit != profiting. Thats exactly what it means. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/profit https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/profit I use linux to write python that I sell for a profit, I profit from these things, and I am happy to support these projects with my profits in return for professionalism I need to make a profit. If I use them in a personal project I benefit from them not profit, and I certainly don't expect anything more than the benefit of not having to write that code, the rest is up to me. This is pure entitlement.
- j-pb 7y agoFrom your source: >> the good result or advantage that can be achieved by a particular action or activity
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]