4 ms·

Totally, I think you’re right, a lot of companies are open to paying for it if it’s saving money and providing value. I mean, all companies already do have a so

by dahart 6y ago

Totally, I think you’re right, a lot of companies are open to paying for it if it’s saving money and providing value. I mean, all companies already do have a software expenditure budget for commercial software. But I guess it is not simple to just put OSS projects in the same budget bucket as proprietary software. Companies have a special aversion to unexpected expenses. I’ve done business with companies that would rather pay a known monthly fee for all their licenses than only pay for the licenses that get used every month, simply because they can’t account for what it will cost in advance. Practically speaking, always paying bounties for changes would turn OSS into pure commercial software from the buyer’s point of view. There are a ton of OSS projects that are supported by the author’s day job at a for-profit company. I guess I’m not convinced that if software is offered for free in the first place that it always makes sense to expect money to be offered without asking for it. If an OSS project needs funding, maybe it’s best to just offer it commercially in the first place? I just don’t necessarily agree with the hyperbole that unpaid labor is “wrong”, because that undermines the initial OSS transaction. The software was offered for free-as-in-beer in the first place, and that is unpaid labor. It’s perfectly fine to request pay for changes, so isn’t that better and more straightfoward than not asking for money but complaining when none comes?

throwaway894345 6y ago
> If an OSS project needs funding, maybe it’s best to just offer it commercially in the first place? There’s quite a lot of overhead involved in running a business relative to an open source project, and this is probably not the kind of work that an open source developer would find fulfilling. Additionally, even if the developer is also able and willing to quit his job to bootstrap his business, that overhead adds to the cost of the software. On the other hand, it would be easy enough IMO to get companies to set aside $20K/year (give or take based on the size of the business) and task a few principal engineers with divvying it out among their open source projects. That would be a pittance for companies but it would be a big infusion for open source.
- dahart 6y ago
  Totally agree on the goal, it would be great if companies established slush funds for their OSS support. That said, it’s not anyone’s responsibility to provide an OSS dev with fulfilling work but themselves. If they don’t want to ask for money, chances are they won’t get any. And it’s not really relevant what money is or is not a pittance for a company, they don’t generally decide their expenditures based on having spare cash, they buy what they need and try to keep what they need to a minimum. As an engineer, if I ask for a $20K budget for OSS support, chances are I will be flatly denied. The good news is many companies already do support the OSS they depend on in multiple ways. The largest tech companies are spending a great deal more than $20k on various kinds of OSS support, FAANG companies spend millions on it. The terms of the economic exchange of any software is the author’s to set. It they want money for their work, in the majority of cases they will need to ask for it, it’s not going to be handed to them, especially when the software is given away for free in the first place. By giving the software away, the author is setting the terms of the economic exchange. Expecting the terms to change later without asking is just as bad as anyone expecting free support. I think if we want to meaningfully support open source, we should figure out how to pay for the software in the first place to use it, not expect companies to throw a dollar in after the fact or only if they ask for changes. Making change requests does not align with the value of open source for most companies. The primary value is in it’s existence.
alangibson 6y ago
> I guess I’m not convinced that if software is offered for free in the first place that it always makes sense to expect money to be offered without asking for it. I'm explicitly not talking about the "software ... offered for free in the first place". I'm talking about changes to that software at someone else's request. > I just don’t necessarily agree with the hyperbole that unpaid labor is “wrong”, because that undermines the initial OSS transaction. I don't think this is true because of the genesis of the open source software itself. I created it for my needs. I would do it even if I didn't plan to give you a copy, but the transaction between us is near zero cost so I go ahead and let you use it too because I'm a cool guy. > The software was offered for free-as-in-beer in the first place, and that is unpaid labor. I'm making a claim that doing something to scratch your own itch doesn't qualify as 'unpaid labor' in any useful sense. It would be like saying doing a hobby is unpaid labor. > It’s perfectly fine to request pay for changes, so isn’t that better and more straightfoward than not asking for money but complaining when none comes? The current norm is to not request pay or to expect to pay. My argument is that norm should be inverted and maintainers should expect payment to be offered, and requestor should expect to offer to pay. If a specific dev doesn't want to be paid, then fine. It's really about the norm changing, not mandating individual behavior.
- dahart 6y ago
  If your software is valuable to me, and I use it without paying for it, then it is unpaid labor. It is irrelevant why you made the software, and irrelevant what the transaction cost is. > My argument is that norm should be inverted That norm is being set by the authors, and can be inverted by the authors, right? If devs want to be paid, they can and do ask to be paid, right?

by dahart 6y ago

throwaway894345 6y ago

> If an OSS project needs funding, maybe it’s best to just offer it commercially in the first place? There’s quite a lot of overhead involved in running a business relative to an open source project, and this is probably not the kind of work that an open source developer would find fulfilling. Additionally, even if the developer is also able and willing to quit his job to bootstrap his business, that overhead adds to the cost of the software. On the other hand, it would be easy enough IMO to get companies to set aside $20K/year (give or take based on the size of the business) and task a few principal engineers with divvying it out among their open source projects. That would be a pittance for companies but it would be a big infusion for open source.

dahart 6y ago
Totally agree on the goal, it would be great if companies established slush funds for their OSS support. That said, it’s not anyone’s responsibility to provide an OSS dev with fulfilling work but themselves. If they don’t want to ask for money, chances are they won’t get any. And it’s not really relevant what money is or is not a pittance for a company, they don’t generally decide their expenditures based on having spare cash, they buy what they need and try to keep what they need to a minimum. As an engineer, if I ask for a $20K budget for OSS support, chances are I will be flatly denied. The good news is many companies already do support the OSS they depend on in multiple ways. The largest tech companies are spending a great deal more than $20k on various kinds of OSS support, FAANG companies spend millions on it. The terms of the economic exchange of any software is the author’s to set. It they want money for their work, in the majority of cases they will need to ask for it, it’s not going to be handed to them, especially when the software is given away for free in the first place. By giving the software away, the author is setting the terms of the economic exchange. Expecting the terms to change later without asking is just as bad as anyone expecting free support. I think if we want to meaningfully support open source, we should figure out how to pay for the software in the first place to use it, not expect companies to throw a dollar in after the fact or only if they ask for changes. Making change requests does not align with the value of open source for most companies. The primary value is in it’s existence.

alangibson 6y ago

> I guess I’m not convinced that if software is offered for free in the first place that it always makes sense to expect money to be offered without asking for it. I'm explicitly not talking about the "software ... offered for free in the first place". I'm talking about changes to that software at someone else's request. > I just don’t necessarily agree with the hyperbole that unpaid labor is “wrong”, because that undermines the initial OSS transaction. I don't think this is true because of the genesis of the open source software itself. I created it for my needs. I would do it even if I didn't plan to give you a copy, but the transaction between us is near zero cost so I go ahead and let you use it too because I'm a cool guy. > The software was offered for free-as-in-beer in the first place, and that is unpaid labor. I'm making a claim that doing something to scratch your own itch doesn't qualify as 'unpaid labor' in any useful sense. It would be like saying doing a hobby is unpaid labor. > It’s perfectly fine to request pay for changes, so isn’t that better and more straightfoward than not asking for money but complaining when none comes? The current norm is to not request pay or to expect to pay. My argument is that norm should be inverted and maintainers should expect payment to be offered, and requestor should expect to offer to pay. If a specific dev doesn't want to be paid, then fine. It's really about the norm changing, not mandating individual behavior.

dahart 6y ago
If your software is valuable to me, and I use it without paying for it, then it is unpaid labor. It is irrelevant why you made the software, and irrelevant what the transaction cost is. > My argument is that norm should be inverted That norm is being set by the authors, and can be inverted by the authors, right? If devs want to be paid, they can and do ask to be paid, right?