4 ms·

> extremely far from unethical to file a feature request. I'm suggesting that it is in fact an ethical problem to try to get something for nothing if you break

> extremely far from unethical to file a feature request. I'm suggesting that it is in fact an ethical problem to try to get something for nothing if you break it down. It's no different than walking into an artists shop and asking if you can just have a painting. It doesn't make you a terrible person, but I think it's a problematic norm. Now there's no requirement that the developer actually take the compensation (whatever it is). If you don't want it, add that to your README and never think of it again.

monetus 6y ago
Hmm, more like walking into a public installation and asking the artist if they considered adding X, since they are mostly losing time while adding to the commons.
- alangibson 6y ago
  If go with that example if there was a direct benefit to me in the addition. Feature requests are typically made based on what the requestor needs, not what they think everyone else might need.
  - monetus 6y ago
    Yeah, emphasis on the feature requests being variable. Hopefully for the burden the more inconsiderate ones create, there is at least a commensurate level of unspoken gratitude. Thanks.
dahart 6y ago
> it is in fact an ethical problem to try to get something for nothing if you break it down The problem with this statement is that the software was offered by the author as something for nothing in the first place. The OSS authors propose that you walk into their shop and walk out with (a copy of) the painting. The problem isn’t taking the painting, it’s coming back later and asking for a change of background color or a new frame, and expecting that to also be free. It’s important to be clear about this and not twist it into something that it is not, otherwise these ideas undermine the purposes of open source. If you frame it as purely a commercial exchange, then you lose the advantages that the open source movement brings to the table.
- alangibson 6y ago
  I'm not really talking about the software as it exists at any given moment. The right to make a copy and use it is explicitly granted by the license. I'm focused strictly on change requests. > The problem isn’t taking the painting, it’s coming back later and asking for a change of background color or a new frame, and expecting that to also be free. Assuming the painting cost nothing to copy but costs alot to change, then I agree.
  - dahart 6y ago
    > I'm not really talking about the software as it exists at any given moment. The right to make a copy and use it is explicitly granted by the license. I'm focused strictly on change requests. That's fine, it's just messy to speak in ethical absolutes about unpaid labor if it only applies to change requests and not the software itself. It's also messy to focus on the economic value of change requests and ignore the economic value of the software itself. It's messy to be perfectly comfortable with the open source license, but later expect that any communication with the author about the software should not fall under the terms of the license the author chose. I'm wildly in favor of companies paying for their change requests, and wildly in favor of open source authors being paid for their work! I just don't quite agree with the framing of ethical absolutes you're proposing. By and large, the majority of people using open source aren't making any change requests, and the majority of the people that do ask for changes are not demanding free work, they're reporting bugs, making suggestions, letting the authors know what would be more useful to them, but not expecting that it will happen. There is a minority of people (often newcomers) to OSS projects that expect responses and help, and they may be in the wrong, but the authors are under no obligation to attend to them, and often say so. All that said, many companies are already supporting OSS financially. Why should we limit paying for OSS to change requests anyway? I'd love to see authors being paid for software that's used in commercial deployments. I'd love to see the authors compensated for their software's value. But we cannot ignore the fact that by choosing to release it openly, they are choosing to forego the requirement that they be paid. For some people, that's acceptable even if others ask for support. > Assuming the painting cost nothing to copy but costs alot to change, then I agree. Yes that is what I mean, and what you meant before that too, because that reflects the reality of open source software. This is why the art shop theft analogy wasn't great in the first place.
jefftk 6y ago
I don't think this is a good analogy. We have a strong social expectation that products in stores cost money. When an artist opens a shop with many paintings, each with a price tag, everyone understands that the expected exchange is money for paintings. On the other hand, with open source, we have a different set of social conventions. While the authors/maintainers are not obligated to handle bug reports or feature requests, we're generally happy to get good ones. They help us make our software better and more useful to more people. My projects are open source because I want them to be useful; I like making things. It's not something I do for money, and turning this into a consulting job wouldn't be fun. Other people can have different motivations, but I don't think I'm all that unusual in thinking about it this way. I'm trying to understand how you think about this. Do you view it as ethical for someone to use open source software without payment? Isn't that also getting something for nothing? Is it ethical for someone to ask a question on one of my blog posts without offering to pay me for my answer?
- alangibson 6y ago
  > On the other hand, with open source, we have a different set of social conventions Agreed. I'd like to see this particular convention change. > Do you view it as ethical for someone to use open source software without payment? Sure, assuming the license says it's ok. So I guess technically were talking about FOSS. > Isn't that also getting something for nothing? I didn't put this well before, but the problem isn't in getting something for nothing per se. The difference comes from the cost imposed on the other party involved. If I download your code, the cost we both pay rounds off to 0. But if you implement something for me, you pay a hefty cost in time while my cost remains 0. So all the value produced goes to me, and you get very close to nothing. I see a problem with any situation where you end up worse off and I end up better off. This is the source of much open source project mortality. The core developer(s) give until they give out. > Is it ethical for someone to ask a question on one of my blog posts without offering to pay me for my answer? Depends. If they are profiting off of the response and all you get is the work of answering, then no. You will eventually get bitter and stop blogging unless you are some angelic person.
  - jefftk 6y ago
gremlinsinc 6y ago
Could the solution be to create a 'feature support branch', anyone with revenues under a threshold could still maybe get free access (say 100k per year), but businesses above that would need to buy an enterprise license. Basically dual-licensing it, so you get paid, but those who are trying to build side projects/etc and may or may not ever make $$ from it, still can experiment?
AnonUser57 6y ago
A feature request is not always "for nothing" - good feature requests provides developers with useful feedback, and good ideas on how to improve the software. Depending on the motivation for developing the software in the first place, a good idea on how to improve the software could be a sufficient reward in itself. E.g. imagine somebody in academia releasing the software to increase the visibility of their research, or some other situation where getting credit is sufficient reward.

monetus 6y ago

Hmm, more like walking into a public installation and asking the artist if they considered adding X, since they are mostly losing time while adding to the commons.

alangibson 6y ago
If go with that example if there was a direct benefit to me in the addition. Feature requests are typically made based on what the requestor needs, not what they think everyone else might need.
- monetus 6y ago
  Yeah, emphasis on the feature requests being variable. Hopefully for the burden the more inconsiderate ones create, there is at least a commensurate level of unspoken gratitude. Thanks.

dahart 6y ago

> it is in fact an ethical problem to try to get something for nothing if you break it down The problem with this statement is that the software was offered by the author as something for nothing in the first place. The OSS authors propose that you walk into their shop and walk out with (a copy of) the painting. The problem isn’t taking the painting, it’s coming back later and asking for a change of background color or a new frame, and expecting that to also be free. It’s important to be clear about this and not twist it into something that it is not, otherwise these ideas undermine the purposes of open source. If you frame it as purely a commercial exchange, then you lose the advantages that the open source movement brings to the table.

alangibson 6y ago
I'm not really talking about the software as it exists at any given moment. The right to make a copy and use it is explicitly granted by the license. I'm focused strictly on change requests. > The problem isn’t taking the painting, it’s coming back later and asking for a change of background color or a new frame, and expecting that to also be free. Assuming the painting cost nothing to copy but costs alot to change, then I agree.
- dahart 6y ago
  > I'm not really talking about the software as it exists at any given moment. The right to make a copy and use it is explicitly granted by the license. I'm focused strictly on change requests. That's fine, it's just messy to speak in ethical absolutes about unpaid labor if it only applies to change requests and not the software itself. It's also messy to focus on the economic value of change requests and ignore the economic value of the software itself. It's messy to be perfectly comfortable with the open source license, but later expect that any communication with the author about the software should not fall under the terms of the license the author chose. I'm wildly in favor of companies paying for their change requests, and wildly in favor of open source authors being paid for their work! I just don't quite agree with the framing of ethical absolutes you're proposing. By and large, the majority of people using open source aren't making any change requests, and the majority of the people that do ask for changes are not demanding free work, they're reporting bugs, making suggestions, letting the authors know what would be more useful to them, but not expecting that it will happen. There is a minority of people (often newcomers) to OSS projects that expect responses and help, and they may be in the wrong, but the authors are under no obligation to attend to them, and often say so. All that said, many companies are already supporting OSS financially. Why should we limit paying for OSS to change requests anyway? I'd love to see authors being paid for software that's used in commercial deployments. I'd love to see the authors compensated for their software's value. But we cannot ignore the fact that by choosing to release it openly, they are choosing to forego the requirement that they be paid. For some people, that's acceptable even if others ask for support. > Assuming the painting cost nothing to copy but costs alot to change, then I agree. Yes that is what I mean, and what you meant before that too, because that reflects the reality of open source software. This is why the art shop theft analogy wasn't great in the first place.

jefftk 6y ago

I don't think this is a good analogy. We have a strong social expectation that products in stores cost money. When an artist opens a shop with many paintings, each with a price tag, everyone understands that the expected exchange is money for paintings. On the other hand, with open source, we have a different set of social conventions. While the authors/maintainers are not obligated to handle bug reports or feature requests, we're generally happy to get good ones. They help us make our software better and more useful to more people. My projects are open source because I want them to be useful; I like making things. It's not something I do for money, and turning this into a consulting job wouldn't be fun. Other people can have different motivations, but I don't think I'm all that unusual in thinking about it this way. I'm trying to understand how you think about this. Do you view it as ethical for someone to use open source software without payment? Isn't that also getting something for nothing? Is it ethical for someone to ask a question on one of my blog posts without offering to pay me for my answer?

alangibson 6y ago
> On the other hand, with open source, we have a different set of social conventions Agreed. I'd like to see this particular convention change. > Do you view it as ethical for someone to use open source software without payment? Sure, assuming the license says it's ok. So I guess technically were talking about FOSS. > Isn't that also getting something for nothing? I didn't put this well before, but the problem isn't in getting something for nothing per se. The difference comes from the cost imposed on the other party involved. If I download your code, the cost we both pay rounds off to 0. But if you implement something for me, you pay a hefty cost in time while my cost remains 0. So all the value produced goes to me, and you get very close to nothing. I see a problem with any situation where you end up worse off and I end up better off. This is the source of much open source project mortality. The core developer(s) give until they give out. > Is it ethical for someone to ask a question on one of my blog posts without offering to pay me for my answer? Depends. If they are profiting off of the response and all you get is the work of answering, then no. You will eventually get bitter and stop blogging unless you are some angelic person.
- jefftk 6y ago

gremlinsinc 6y ago

Could the solution be to create a 'feature support branch', anyone with revenues under a threshold could still maybe get free access (say 100k per year), but businesses above that would need to buy an enterprise license. Basically dual-licensing it, so you get paid, but those who are trying to build side projects/etc and may or may not ever make $$ from it, still can experiment?

AnonUser57 6y ago

A feature request is not always "for nothing" - good feature requests provides developers with useful feedback, and good ideas on how to improve the software. Depending on the motivation for developing the software in the first place, a good idea on how to improve the software could be a sufficient reward in itself. E.g. imagine somebody in academia releasing the software to increase the visibility of their research, or some other situation where getting credit is sufficient reward.