4 ms·

About time. These multi-billion companies exploited open source software and essentially got free labour without having to pay salaries and taxes by cynically p

About time. These multi-billion companies exploited open source software and essentially got free labour without having to pay salaries and taxes by cynically promoting open source movement manipulating developers into giving up their hard work for free (exposure). Hopefully the time will come that these companies will make big payouts to all people who where manipulated into contributing into "open source software" (meaning free labour for big corporations).

waynesonfire 6y ago
Comparing open source development to a forced labor camp is a stretch. I wouldn't hold my breath for a "big payout" -- a company will invest in what they find is necessary. Maybe it's a gold sponsor, maybe a junior engineer hire or more. The market is efficient in my view and everyone involved benefits. The disconnect I see is the delusion that open source contributor(s) are owed something because someone else found the software useful. They seem to so quickly forget that they picked the liscense and that liscense is being used as designed. Your narrative is not productive. Instead, maybe advocate for cultural change in what it means to adopt open source technology, eliminate barriers for monetary or other forms of support. It's unlikely the intent of adoters is to be laughing all the way to the bank as you're claiming.
- varispeed 6y ago
  My point is that big companies promote open source movement as a way to save on R&D spending. They'll see what people make for free and then pick up what sticks without paying anything for the effort. In many countries you can't hire someone to do work for free, even if they agree and you have at least pay minimum wage. The same should apply for open source software. Big companies should not be allowed to use it without reimbursing all contributors even if they license the code as public domain. This needs to stop as this is a modern way of labour exploitation. People make literally billions of off python and its time they share that profits with the developers and pay appropriate taxes!
  - drstewart 6y ago
    Your point is bad. If you don't want companies to use your work without paying, then don't open source it under free licenses. Simple, simple solution. You can't make something freely available and then complain when people use it. You don't get to choose both sides of the argument.
    - varispeed 6y ago
      The problem is that this is mostly done by people from privileged white background who can afford to give their work away for free and that puts into disadvantage people who simply cannot do that, because they need to pay bills and feed their families. For the same reason in many countries companies are not able to accept free labour, they have to pay at least a minimum wage for this reason as these spots would have been taken by people with rich parents "who want to find themselves" and poor people would miss out. This levels up the playing field. If you think deeper about this issue, you should be able to notice that this is somewhat a loophole around this legislation packaged into a nice and catchy marketing.
kortilla 6y ago
> These multi-billion companies exploited open source software > promoting open source movement manipulating developers into giving up their hard work for free Make up your mind, were they exploiting open source by using it or were they getting more people to contribute to open source? You know the point of contributing to open source is it make it open source, right? Do you exploit open source by using Linux instead of paying for Windows? Do you exploit open source by celebrating open source developers?
- varispeed 6y ago
  This is not mutually exclusive > were they exploiting open source by using it Yes, they were profiting from labour they didn't pay for > or were they getting more people to contribute to open source Yes they promote open source so they can get more work done for free > You know the point of contributing to open source is it make it open source, right? That's the idea, but reality is that this is a loophole where big corporations save on R&D and get work done without having to pay salaries and taxes. In many countries you cannot hire someone without paying them even if they agree to work for free and the same should apply to software. > Do you exploit open source by using Linux instead of paying for Windows? The problem is that it is difficult to reward all the people who contributed to Linux and that needs to change. > Do you exploit open source by celebrating open source developers? That makes little sense. If you embrace open source you are actually helping big companies getting free labour.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    > In many countries you cannot hire someone without paying them even if they agree to work for free and the same should apply to software. In those countries, am I permitted to shovel my neighbor’s sidewalk or mow their lawn? Can I help a friend paint a room or change a tire? Am I permitted to write a poem and share it for free? Can I publish scientific findings that I might have created? > If you embrace open source you are actually helping big companies getting free labour. I see it as “Yes, and:” We are helping all humans avoid the tedium and drudgery of solving now-pointless problems because they have already been solved, avoid introducing novel security bugs, and overall to help us collectively stand on the shoulders of giants rather than on the toes. That does help large companies avoid creating a bunch of tedious, pointless, repetitive work which humans would have to forfeit large chunks of their lives solving. That sounds like a feature rather than a bug to me. It also helps small companies afford to offer tech-based solutions and to better utilize the constrained pool of “people who are good at programming”.
enneff 6y ago
Did you know that many (most?) key open source contributors are employed by companies specifically to keep working on their open source projects? This is true of kernel developers, language maintainers, and many more.
- varispeed 6y ago
  Open source contributors are typically privileged white men who can afford to work for free and give away their work because they can and they enjoy showing off. This puts people from poor backgrounds who can't afford to spend days on projects for free as they have bills to pay and mouths to feed at severe disadvantage. Why companies would hire developers if these cool kids give everything away for free? This is much bigger problem than you think.
  - mltvc 6y ago
    So you presume that there is a fixed amount of development work to be done at companies and by using open source software for free they are hiring less people?
  - youre_a_racist 6y ago
    > Open source contributors are typically privileged white men who can afford to work for free and give away their work because they can and they enjoy showing off. Good point, we should string up all these white bastards from the nearest lamp post. How dare these pale-skinned, cock-wielding scum contribute to the common good!
cnla 6y ago
That time will never come. Do you think that Google will pay all 100 core developers who actually built the language retroactively? No, it's a power grab, because full time developers plowing through the code base and working on minor issues crowd out the actual IP creators and make them leave. Expect a dull, boring corporate controlled maintenance age where one or two people do mundane work and directors of various foundations and groups take the credit.
- varispeed 6y ago
  > Do you think that Google will pay all 100 core developers who actually built the language retroactively? That would be an ideal scenario to be honest. If company wants to use the work, they should pay for it and for all time that lead to it or developers should be required by law to change licenses so that companies would have to pay either a subscription or a fixed fee for the software version. That divide between boring development and rock star seeding indeed exists and typically people working on IP have their own companies and contract out their work. They create a PoC and then company employees make it into a product. That used to work well in the UK, but law has changed to be more akin to the US rules where you can't provide IT services as a small company (typically one man) and you have to be an employee.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

waynesonfire 6y ago

Comparing open source development to a forced labor camp is a stretch. I wouldn't hold my breath for a "big payout" -- a company will invest in what they find is necessary. Maybe it's a gold sponsor, maybe a junior engineer hire or more. The market is efficient in my view and everyone involved benefits. The disconnect I see is the delusion that open source contributor(s) are owed something because someone else found the software useful. They seem to so quickly forget that they picked the liscense and that liscense is being used as designed. Your narrative is not productive. Instead, maybe advocate for cultural change in what it means to adopt open source technology, eliminate barriers for monetary or other forms of support. It's unlikely the intent of adoters is to be laughing all the way to the bank as you're claiming.

varispeed 6y ago
My point is that big companies promote open source movement as a way to save on R&D spending. They'll see what people make for free and then pick up what sticks without paying anything for the effort. In many countries you can't hire someone to do work for free, even if they agree and you have at least pay minimum wage. The same should apply for open source software. Big companies should not be allowed to use it without reimbursing all contributors even if they license the code as public domain. This needs to stop as this is a modern way of labour exploitation. People make literally billions of off python and its time they share that profits with the developers and pay appropriate taxes!
- drstewart 6y ago
  Your point is bad. If you don't want companies to use your work without paying, then don't open source it under free licenses. Simple, simple solution. You can't make something freely available and then complain when people use it. You don't get to choose both sides of the argument.
  - varispeed 6y ago
    The problem is that this is mostly done by people from privileged white background who can afford to give their work away for free and that puts into disadvantage people who simply cannot do that, because they need to pay bills and feed their families. For the same reason in many countries companies are not able to accept free labour, they have to pay at least a minimum wage for this reason as these spots would have been taken by people with rich parents "who want to find themselves" and poor people would miss out. This levels up the playing field. If you think deeper about this issue, you should be able to notice that this is somewhat a loophole around this legislation packaged into a nice and catchy marketing.

kortilla 6y ago

> These multi-billion companies exploited open source software > promoting open source movement manipulating developers into giving up their hard work for free Make up your mind, were they exploiting open source by using it or were they getting more people to contribute to open source? You know the point of contributing to open source is it make it open source, right? Do you exploit open source by using Linux instead of paying for Windows? Do you exploit open source by celebrating open source developers?

varispeed 6y ago
This is not mutually exclusive > were they exploiting open source by using it Yes, they were profiting from labour they didn't pay for > or were they getting more people to contribute to open source Yes they promote open source so they can get more work done for free > You know the point of contributing to open source is it make it open source, right? That's the idea, but reality is that this is a loophole where big corporations save on R&D and get work done without having to pay salaries and taxes. In many countries you cannot hire someone without paying them even if they agree to work for free and the same should apply to software. > Do you exploit open source by using Linux instead of paying for Windows? The problem is that it is difficult to reward all the people who contributed to Linux and that needs to change. > Do you exploit open source by celebrating open source developers? That makes little sense. If you embrace open source you are actually helping big companies getting free labour.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  > In many countries you cannot hire someone without paying them even if they agree to work for free and the same should apply to software. In those countries, am I permitted to shovel my neighbor’s sidewalk or mow their lawn? Can I help a friend paint a room or change a tire? Am I permitted to write a poem and share it for free? Can I publish scientific findings that I might have created? > If you embrace open source you are actually helping big companies getting free labour. I see it as “Yes, and:” We are helping all humans avoid the tedium and drudgery of solving now-pointless problems because they have already been solved, avoid introducing novel security bugs, and overall to help us collectively stand on the shoulders of giants rather than on the toes. That does help large companies avoid creating a bunch of tedious, pointless, repetitive work which humans would have to forfeit large chunks of their lives solving. That sounds like a feature rather than a bug to me. It also helps small companies afford to offer tech-based solutions and to better utilize the constrained pool of “people who are good at programming”.

enneff 6y ago

Did you know that many (most?) key open source contributors are employed by companies specifically to keep working on their open source projects? This is true of kernel developers, language maintainers, and many more.

varispeed 6y ago
Open source contributors are typically privileged white men who can afford to work for free and give away their work because they can and they enjoy showing off. This puts people from poor backgrounds who can't afford to spend days on projects for free as they have bills to pay and mouths to feed at severe disadvantage. Why companies would hire developers if these cool kids give everything away for free? This is much bigger problem than you think.
- mltvc 6y ago
  So you presume that there is a fixed amount of development work to be done at companies and by using open source software for free they are hiring less people?
- youre_a_racist 6y ago
  > Open source contributors are typically privileged white men who can afford to work for free and give away their work because they can and they enjoy showing off. Good point, we should string up all these white bastards from the nearest lamp post. How dare these pale-skinned, cock-wielding scum contribute to the common good!

cnla 6y ago

That time will never come. Do you think that Google will pay all 100 core developers who actually built the language retroactively? No, it's a power grab, because full time developers plowing through the code base and working on minor issues crowd out the actual IP creators and make them leave. Expect a dull, boring corporate controlled maintenance age where one or two people do mundane work and directors of various foundations and groups take the credit.

varispeed 6y ago
> Do you think that Google will pay all 100 core developers who actually built the language retroactively? That would be an ideal scenario to be honest. If company wants to use the work, they should pay for it and for all time that lead to it or developers should be required by law to change licenses so that companies would have to pay either a subscription or a fixed fee for the software version. That divide between boring development and rock star seeding indeed exists and typically people working on IP have their own companies and contract out their work. They create a PoC and then company employees make it into a product. That used to work well in the UK, but law has changed to be more akin to the US rules where you can't provide IT services as a small company (typically one man) and you have to be an employee.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]