3 ms·

Much of the discussion in this thread has highlighted the difference between those who regard open source as a community and public good, and those who regard i

by rfrey 6y ago

Much of the discussion in this thread has highlighted the difference between those who regard open source as a community and public good, and those who regard it as a resource to be exploited. The latter sees anything beyond legalistic compliance as an unreasonable expectation. Personally I'm disappointed with the exploitation view, but I also think it's an interesting example of how different assumptions lead groups to talk past each other. "AWS was in complete compliance, what's the problem?" versus "AWS violated the spirit of the community". Each camp agrees with the other camp's assertion but sees it as irrelevant.

bloodorange 6y ago
What you call "exploitation view" is at the very core of a capitalistic mindset.
yourapostasy 6y ago
The exploitation view is mostly due to the anonymous nature of those personal, natural person individuals performing the decision to exploit. The personal cost to them of the decision is muted if it is felt at all: the endless layers of the corporate body shields them. However, if their names attached to such decisions were plastered all over LinkedIn, GitHub, or the even the project "look who is using our project" page, the responsibility that went with that decision authority just went up a noticeable amount. With REST API access to graph-networked tracking of such decisions, someone's track record of these kinds of decisions will follow them. Forever. Such tracking will also start revealing companies with a certain track record. The consequences of that are up to those in the future making decisions whether to interact with those individuals. It could be neutral, beneficial, or adverse, depending upon who they deal with. Also, nothing prevents open source projects from tapping such aggregated data in an automated fashion, and auto-updating an exception to their open source license. "Anyone may license under <foo-open-source> license, except for the following list of individuals: ..., And except for the following list of companies: ..., <followed-by-legal-stuff-preventing-assignations-for-example>. For you, <consequence-decided-by-project>." Licenses are similarly amended to generate the attribution data in the first place. That consequence can be whatever strikes the fancy of the project. Whether it be must license commercially, must post a LinkedIn video of them singing "Good Ship Lollipop" before they can license under the open source license, must post an escrow bond they forfeit if they violate the terms, etc. Shine a light upon the natural person authority, and see who steps into the spotlight proud to show off their accountability.
Chris2048 6y ago
Describing the latter as "exploitation view" is the kind of bad-faith label ala pro-life vs anti-abortion. I see not problem with a lack of attribution, but that means I support "exploitation"? why not describe your own position as the "egocentric" view?
- rfrey 6y ago
  I accept that criticism, I'll be more careful with labels. I've been using "exploitation" for so long in the ML sense of "exploitation vs exploration" that I forgot it can have negative overtones. Or maybe I ignored those overtones because of personal bias. Definition 2 of exploitation: "the action of making use of and benefiting from resources." Definition 1: "the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.". I don't like being accused of bad faith though, I do put a lot of effort into strong-manning positions I disagree with.

by rfrey 6y ago

bloodorange 6y ago

What you call "exploitation view" is at the very core of a capitalistic mindset.

yourapostasy 6y ago

The exploitation view is mostly due to the anonymous nature of those personal, natural person individuals performing the decision to exploit. The personal cost to them of the decision is muted if it is felt at all: the endless layers of the corporate body shields them. However, if their names attached to such decisions were plastered all over LinkedIn, GitHub, or the even the project "look who is using our project" page, the responsibility that went with that decision authority just went up a noticeable amount. With REST API access to graph-networked tracking of such decisions, someone's track record of these kinds of decisions will follow them. Forever. Such tracking will also start revealing companies with a certain track record. The consequences of that are up to those in the future making decisions whether to interact with those individuals. It could be neutral, beneficial, or adverse, depending upon who they deal with. Also, nothing prevents open source projects from tapping such aggregated data in an automated fashion, and auto-updating an exception to their open source license. "Anyone may license under <foo-open-source> license, except for the following list of individuals: ..., And except for the following list of companies: ..., <followed-by-legal-stuff-preventing-assignations-for-example>. For you, <consequence-decided-by-project>." Licenses are similarly amended to generate the attribution data in the first place. That consequence can be whatever strikes the fancy of the project. Whether it be must license commercially, must post a LinkedIn video of them singing "Good Ship Lollipop" before they can license under the open source license, must post an escrow bond they forfeit if they violate the terms, etc. Shine a light upon the natural person authority, and see who steps into the spotlight proud to show off their accountability.

Chris2048 6y ago

Describing the latter as "exploitation view" is the kind of bad-faith label ala pro-life vs anti-abortion. I see not problem with a lack of attribution, but that means I support "exploitation"? why not describe your own position as the "egocentric" view?

rfrey 6y ago
I accept that criticism, I'll be more careful with labels. I've been using "exploitation" for so long in the ML sense of "exploitation vs exploration" that I forgot it can have negative overtones. Or maybe I ignored those overtones because of personal bias. Definition 2 of exploitation: "the action of making use of and benefiting from resources." Definition 1: "the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.". I don't like being accused of bad faith though, I do put a lot of effort into strong-manning positions I disagree with.