3 ms·

> 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

> 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 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.