4 ms·

but did the megacorp?

kortilla 6y ago
Unlikely. If you expect something different you’re missing the point of open source. Roy didn’t have to fix anything if he didn’t want to.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  I mean, it's not a legal obligation, but it might be a nicer world if we considered it an ethical one.
  - sneak 6y ago
    I think perhaps you mean "moral" rather than "ethical". It is entirely ethical to use free software, even to generate massive profits, without paying anyone anything. That's literally the whole point of software freedom: you're free.
    - js2 6y ago
      Ethical and moral are synonyms. I don't understand the difference you're trying to draw. Definition of ethical 1 : of or relating to ethics // ethical theories 2 : involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval // ethical judgments 3 : conforming to accepted standards of conduct // ethical behavior Definition of moral (Entry 1 of 2) 1a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL // moral judgments b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior // a moral poem c : conforming to a standard of right behavior // took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination
      - sneak 6y ago
        This is absolutely not correct. Morals are subjective, whereas ethics is a field of study that exists specifically to provide objective frameworks.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - kortilla 6y ago
        https://www.dictionary.com/e/moral-vs-ethical/ https://www.dictionary.com/e/moral-vs-ethical/
    - Daho0n 6y ago
      Free as in freedom. Even though you can't force them, big corps really should donate at least some free beer.
      - sneak 6y ago
        The point of freedom is that there is no "should" beyond what the license requires. They are free to act as they choose, and do what they choose, with the software.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        We are also free to consider that dickish behavior and criticize it.
        sneak 6y ago
        Sure, but that's plainly not in the spirit of free software. I think that we can all agree that blowing people up with bombs is dickish behavior, and yet the software that has been released with otherwise-free licenses that prohibit its use in such bombing systems has been rejected by the free software community as nonfree. The idea behind free software is that no other party gets to tell you what you can or can't do with it, such as "make money without donating anything upstream", "bomb children", or any other such thing.
        kortilla 6y ago
        Cool, so you’re insulting the developers of open source software. No good deed goes unpunished I suppose. Developers impose the license. If they don’t want it used by corporations freely it’s trivial for them to say so. You’re implying that the developers are encouraging dickish behavior by doing what they want with their software.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    No, that defeats the fucking point of open source. Nowhere did I say it was a legal obligation. I’m saying it’s not an obligation at all because that’s the entire reason it’s open source to begin with. I write open source software. I don’t want my users means tested by the moral brigade to determine they should have coughed up money. I put it out there to literally prevent people from wasting humanity re-inventing the wheel. It’s right in the damn license. If you want to create an obligation, stay the fuck out of the open source community.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > No, that defeats the fucking point of open source. The "fucking point of open source" was, in part, that "free software" didn't send the right message and that we needed a new term that didn't imply "free as in beer". Open collaboration and the freedoms to fix/modify/distribute the software you own doesn't conflict with the idea that maybe megacorps benefiting from it should chip in a little towards the maintenance of the thing they're making megabucks off.

Unlikely. If you expect something different you’re missing the point of open source. Roy didn’t have to fix anything if he didn’t want to.

ceejayoz 6y ago
I mean, it's not a legal obligation, but it might be a nicer world if we considered it an ethical one.
- sneak 6y ago
  I think perhaps you mean "moral" rather than "ethical". It is entirely ethical to use free software, even to generate massive profits, without paying anyone anything. That's literally the whole point of software freedom: you're free.
  - js2 6y ago
    Ethical and moral are synonyms. I don't understand the difference you're trying to draw. Definition of ethical 1 : of or relating to ethics // ethical theories 2 : involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval // ethical judgments 3 : conforming to accepted standards of conduct // ethical behavior Definition of moral (Entry 1 of 2) 1a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL // moral judgments b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior // a moral poem c : conforming to a standard of right behavior // took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination
    - sneak 6y ago
      This is absolutely not correct. Morals are subjective, whereas ethics is a field of study that exists specifically to provide objective frameworks.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - kortilla 6y ago
      https://www.dictionary.com/e/moral-vs-ethical/ https://www.dictionary.com/e/moral-vs-ethical/
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    Free as in freedom. Even though you can't force them, big corps really should donate at least some free beer.
    - sneak 6y ago
      The point of freedom is that there is no "should" beyond what the license requires. They are free to act as they choose, and do what they choose, with the software.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        We are also free to consider that dickish behavior and criticize it.
        sneak 6y ago
        Sure, but that's plainly not in the spirit of free software. I think that we can all agree that blowing people up with bombs is dickish behavior, and yet the software that has been released with otherwise-free licenses that prohibit its use in such bombing systems has been rejected by the free software community as nonfree. The idea behind free software is that no other party gets to tell you what you can or can't do with it, such as "make money without donating anything upstream", "bomb children", or any other such thing.
        kortilla 6y ago
        Cool, so you’re insulting the developers of open source software. No good deed goes unpunished I suppose. Developers impose the license. If they don’t want it used by corporations freely it’s trivial for them to say so. You’re implying that the developers are encouraging dickish behavior by doing what they want with their software.
- kortilla 6y ago
  No, that defeats the fucking point of open source. Nowhere did I say it was a legal obligation. I’m saying it’s not an obligation at all because that’s the entire reason it’s open source to begin with. I write open source software. I don’t want my users means tested by the moral brigade to determine they should have coughed up money. I put it out there to literally prevent people from wasting humanity re-inventing the wheel. It’s right in the damn license. If you want to create an obligation, stay the fuck out of the open source community.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > No, that defeats the fucking point of open source. The "fucking point of open source" was, in part, that "free software" didn't send the right message and that we needed a new term that didn't imply "free as in beer". Open collaboration and the freedoms to fix/modify/distribute the software you own doesn't conflict with the idea that maybe megacorps benefiting from it should chip in a little towards the maintenance of the thing they're making megabucks off.