3 ms·

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

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.

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.