3 ms·

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 focuse

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.
- alangibson 6y ago
  > it's just messy to speak in ethical absolutes about unpaid labor I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that unpaid labor where the other side is profiting is definitely bad. > if it only applies to change requests and not the software itself. I tried to break down why I think it is necessary to split these in the context of open source. I'll try to refine that point in the future. > It's also messy to focus on the economic value of change requests and ignore the economic value of the software itself. Much remains to be said about the economic value of the software itself. That's just not what I'm harping on right now. > It's messy to be perfectly comfortable with the open source license, but later expect that any communication with the author about the software I never said 'any.' Change requests are a very specific thing in our industry. > should not fall under the terms of the license the author chose. I don't get that. Why would communication with the developer fall under a software license? Edit: I think you might mean that, because the source code was free, it's implied that the changes should be free. If so, that's exactly the norm I want to change and also why I split up the offer of source code from change requests. Getting the source code free should not imply you get changes free for reasons I laid out elsewhere in this discussion.
  - dahart 6y ago
    > I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that unpaid labor where the other side is profiting is definitely bad. That is definitely not always true. And regardless, creation of the software itself is labor. It’s not a great idea to claim all unpaid labor is bad when the author explicitly chooses to forego payment for writing the software, and also turn around and say you’re only talking about a fuzzy gray line called change requests. If profiting from someone else's labor without paying is bad, then why focus on change requests? Most companies who profit from OSS aren't asking for changes, but are making money. > it’s implied that the changes should be free No, I didn’t mean that the license implies changes should be free. I just mean that the license doesn’t help setup expectations, and the author is the one who both controls the license and the expectations. The main issue here is expectations. I see and appreciate your goals here, it’s applaudable to vouch for people who should be getting paid. What I don’t see is a clear and strong argument for why this shouldn’t be handled by market forces - why companies should pay without being asked, how much they should pay, and why devs shouldn’t simply charge for change requests and/or the software, if payment is what they seek.

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.

alangibson 6y ago
> it's just messy to speak in ethical absolutes about unpaid labor I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that unpaid labor where the other side is profiting is definitely bad. > if it only applies to change requests and not the software itself. I tried to break down why I think it is necessary to split these in the context of open source. I'll try to refine that point in the future. > It's also messy to focus on the economic value of change requests and ignore the economic value of the software itself. Much remains to be said about the economic value of the software itself. That's just not what I'm harping on right now. > It's messy to be perfectly comfortable with the open source license, but later expect that any communication with the author about the software I never said 'any.' Change requests are a very specific thing in our industry. > should not fall under the terms of the license the author chose. I don't get that. Why would communication with the developer fall under a software license? Edit: I think you might mean that, because the source code was free, it's implied that the changes should be free. If so, that's exactly the norm I want to change and also why I split up the offer of source code from change requests. Getting the source code free should not imply you get changes free for reasons I laid out elsewhere in this discussion.
- dahart 6y ago
  > I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that unpaid labor where the other side is profiting is definitely bad. That is definitely not always true. And regardless, creation of the software itself is labor. It’s not a great idea to claim all unpaid labor is bad when the author explicitly chooses to forego payment for writing the software, and also turn around and say you’re only talking about a fuzzy gray line called change requests. If profiting from someone else's labor without paying is bad, then why focus on change requests? Most companies who profit from OSS aren't asking for changes, but are making money. > it’s implied that the changes should be free No, I didn’t mean that the license implies changes should be free. I just mean that the license doesn’t help setup expectations, and the author is the one who both controls the license and the expectations. The main issue here is expectations. I see and appreciate your goals here, it’s applaudable to vouch for people who should be getting paid. What I don’t see is a clear and strong argument for why this shouldn’t be handled by market forces - why companies should pay without being asked, how much they should pay, and why devs shouldn’t simply charge for change requests and/or the software, if payment is what they seek.