5 ms·
You sir have misunderstood the concept of open source software. As an open source author or maintainer you don't do the work for others and then expect some ki
by ganafagol 6y ago
You sir have misunderstood the concept of open source software.
As an open source author or maintainer you don't do the work for others and then expect some kind of compensation. The idea instead is to do the work that you would have done anyway because somebody else paid you or because you did it for fun, and then you publish it to use the community to help you fix issues. A philantropic motivation is nice but not necessary and just a minor side effect. And just as you don't have an obligation to help does nobody have an obligation to help you either.
That's why I like the term "open source" better than the original "free software". If you get the root motivation that RMS had for the "freedom" aspect of it, then that's the same thing, but too many people read it as "for free". Like apparently the author of this article. And that's just wrong.
- dtech 6y agoIt's also fully his choice to no longer do that...
- ganafagol 6y agoAbsolutely. I would even encourage people to stop do this kind of thing. It's just that the rant demonstrates the misunderstanding, which is what I'm trying to point out.
- ludston 6y agoI don't know if there is "one true motivation" for working on open source software, and any other reasoning is a lack of understanding.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y agoOpen Source has nothing to do with Free Software. There is a plenty of OSS products which are not free to use.
- orangeshark 6y agoFree Software doesn't have to be free to use either (free as in free beer).
- erinnh 6y agoCan you give an example, because Im not sure what you mean exactly.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y agoOpenPose
- erinnh 6y agoNot really open source, though, is it?
- justinclift 6y agoLooking at their GitHub repo, you're right: https://github.com/CMU-Perceptual-Computing-Lab/openpose#license https://github.com/CMU-Perceptual-Computing-Lab/openpose#lic... OpenPose is freely available for free non-commercial use, and may be redistributed under these conditions.
- ricardobeat 6y agoThat's not correct, those are not considered OSS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition
- andi999 6y agoI am not really happy that a string of words which have an understandable meaning ('open' and 'source' leading to 'open source') has been hijacked by some foundation. I mean how would you phrase it if your customer wants to source to be open, but without the freedom of redistribution (because he doesnt want to pay for it).
- MaximumYComb 6y agoI feel that the author started open source out of passion but is at the stage where he is sick of incredibly valuable companies using his work for profit without contributing back.
- ganafagol 6y agoI can see that a passion to please can be disappointed if there is no reciprocity. But a passion to build great technology should not depend on who starts using it.
- ZephyrBlu 6y agoI don't think his passion depends who is using his software, but rather his passion is being eroded by users constantly taking without giving back.
- schwartzworld 6y agoMaybe one's passion starts to dwindle when one's house burns down.
- adwn 6y agoDid you mean to reply to someone? Because your post doesn't fit the original link at all.
- flippinburgers 6y agoHave github issues been elevated to the level of articles? There comes a time with all open source where the person developing goes away for some reason and someone else has to take charge. That is open source. Expecting him to feel bad about this choice is bad form. I hope the developer gets financial support if the project is truly that popular. The reality of getting support is likely to be thin. While not as mission critical, stories like these remind me of openssl.
- BlueTemplar 6y ago> That's why I like the term "open source" better than the original "free software". If you get the root motivation that RMS had for the "freedom" aspect of it, then that's the same thing, That's revisionism : Open Source split from Free Software because they wanted to give freedom to companies to profit from it. With predictable consequences… > but too many people read it as "for free". Like apparently the author of this article. And that's just wrong. Indeed. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html And this is why 'free' is a very bad adjective to use in this context. IMHO 'libre' is way better.
- afiori 6y agoit's actually quite close to paying taxes, most people understand the benefits of a tax system (even libertarians with some caveats) but it is hard to be enthusiastic about paying taxes if you can see widespread evasion, corruption, and waste. I am okay with paying 32% in taxes, but only if everyone else is doing it too