3 ms·

Or more accurately - developers create software for free and license it as Open Source because of social pressure within the development community. Large corpor

Or more accurately - developers create software for free and license it as Open Source because of social pressure within the development community. Large corporations say thank you very much and use it to make vast quantities of money without contributing back financially to the people who actually do the work. Anyone who points out that this is grossly counter productive if you want to build a sustainable ecosystem that doesn't depend on the unpaid labour of volunteers gets shouted down by free software cheerleaders who condescendingly stress that they mean "free as in speech rather than free as in beer," despite all Open Source licenses literally demanding that Open Source software can be distributed for free (as in beer).

greggman3 6y ago
It certainly sounds logical but we see no evidence of this. Software creation is the highest it's ever been and accelerating. Salaries are going up. Open Source is arguably one of the reasons we're where we're at. I'd argue anything that puts up a barrier or changes the incentives to open source might be the thing that killed the goose that laid the golden egg. I don't currently get paid for all the open source work I do nor do I expect to be but if that expectation changed, if everyone expected to be compensated for their what at least starts out as their hobby, I'd guess the amount of people doing it drop drastically. Of course it sucks if your project gets popular and you feel obligated to keep spending time on it but you can always walk away. Otherwise my compensation is the feeling I get from helping. This is no different then volunteering. I don't go to the soup kitchen and demand a salary for helping out. I also feel compensated from everyone else's contributions. That companies like Apple (clang, llvm, swift, webkit), Google (android, chrome, angular, dart, flutter), Facebook (react, graphql), Microsoft (.net, vs code), etc... They are paying me back by offering all of that. I'm sure you can name some rich company not contributing but I guess I really don't care.
account42 6y ago
> and license it as Open Source because of social pressure within the development community I hope you are not implying that that is the main or even only reason to release free software. > Anyone who [...] IME people get shouted down for suggesting to "fix" free software by removing freedoms.
- throwaway936482 6y ago
  I'd actually say it's one of the primary motivations, but then I think that's the reason most people do most things. On the second point freedom doesn't exist in a vacuum and exercising ones freedoms almost always involves impinging on the freedoms of others. Therefore there is a constant negotiation going on that involves the balancing of freedoms of different individuals, not to mention the balancing of freedoms with other ethical goods that people value (like equality, happiness etc.) There is very little recognition in the fsf / open source world that adopting a maximalist approach to a specific set of freedoms - those that fit into the free software / open source ideology - necessarily impinges on other freedoms that many people also value - like the freedom to own and profit from one's labour without further enriching google et. al (Yes there are differences between the fsf and open source camps but they're largely of the peoples front of Judea / judean people's front variety.)
avasthe 6y ago
Seems like a lot of open source is coming from big tech these days. And OSS is more attractive to those companies in terms of not being vendor locked-in. People who are annoyed that age of commercial smalltalks is over, or shilling for oracle, never understand this.
pessimizer 6y ago
Free Software and Open Source software are not the same thing. Open Source was entirely conceived in order to subvert Free Software through making it even cheaper. So "free software cheerleaders" are not trying to defend Open Source. If you don't want large corporations, or any corporations, ripping off your work, make it AGPL and sell them licenses. As it is, most of this type of thing seems to be a complaint that the commons is crowding out the small businessman i.e. "There are too many public parks, and they're keeping people from visiting my nature resort."

greggman3 6y ago

It certainly sounds logical but we see no evidence of this. Software creation is the highest it's ever been and accelerating. Salaries are going up. Open Source is arguably one of the reasons we're where we're at. I'd argue anything that puts up a barrier or changes the incentives to open source might be the thing that killed the goose that laid the golden egg. I don't currently get paid for all the open source work I do nor do I expect to be but if that expectation changed, if everyone expected to be compensated for their what at least starts out as their hobby, I'd guess the amount of people doing it drop drastically. Of course it sucks if your project gets popular and you feel obligated to keep spending time on it but you can always walk away. Otherwise my compensation is the feeling I get from helping. This is no different then volunteering. I don't go to the soup kitchen and demand a salary for helping out. I also feel compensated from everyone else's contributions. That companies like Apple (clang, llvm, swift, webkit), Google (android, chrome, angular, dart, flutter), Facebook (react, graphql), Microsoft (.net, vs code), etc... They are paying me back by offering all of that. I'm sure you can name some rich company not contributing but I guess I really don't care.

account42 6y ago

> and license it as Open Source because of social pressure within the development community I hope you are not implying that that is the main or even only reason to release free software. > Anyone who [...] IME people get shouted down for suggesting to "fix" free software by removing freedoms.

throwaway936482 6y ago
I'd actually say it's one of the primary motivations, but then I think that's the reason most people do most things. On the second point freedom doesn't exist in a vacuum and exercising ones freedoms almost always involves impinging on the freedoms of others. Therefore there is a constant negotiation going on that involves the balancing of freedoms of different individuals, not to mention the balancing of freedoms with other ethical goods that people value (like equality, happiness etc.) There is very little recognition in the fsf / open source world that adopting a maximalist approach to a specific set of freedoms - those that fit into the free software / open source ideology - necessarily impinges on other freedoms that many people also value - like the freedom to own and profit from one's labour without further enriching google et. al (Yes there are differences between the fsf and open source camps but they're largely of the peoples front of Judea / judean people's front variety.)

avasthe 6y ago

Seems like a lot of open source is coming from big tech these days. And OSS is more attractive to those companies in terms of not being vendor locked-in. People who are annoyed that age of commercial smalltalks is over, or shilling for oracle, never understand this.

pessimizer 6y ago

Free Software and Open Source software are not the same thing. Open Source was entirely conceived in order to subvert Free Software through making it even cheaper. So "free software cheerleaders" are not trying to defend Open Source. If you don't want large corporations, or any corporations, ripping off your work, make it AGPL and sell them licenses. As it is, most of this type of thing seems to be a complaint that the commons is crowding out the small businessman i.e. "There are too many public parks, and they're keeping people from visiting my nature resort."