4 ms·

This might sound weird, but I find every time someone publishes or contributes open source, they are stealing value from me, because it is one less thing that a

This might sound weird, but I find every time someone publishes or contributes open source, they are stealing value from me, because it is one less thing that a company will need me to implement, build and maintain for them, instead they'll now expect me to simply use the existing free of charge open source one. Not only does it feel like I'm stolen value, open source work tends to be the most interesting, and as more and more is done and offered for free, my work becomes less and less interesting, and the job becomes more about connecting and configuring all these open source systems together. Needing to contribute free work in open source before getting a job therefore sounds like the biggest of scams to me.

Scarblac 5y ago
That's a good point. We as developers trying to make a living doing it are competing with an ever-expanding sea of OSS. And therefore we'd be mad to contribute to it, for free even. On the other hand, from the viewpoint of all of humanity, it is great that there exists a huge amount of software that is useable by everyone for free.
loudmax 5y ago
I guess in the same way that public libraries steal value from book publishers and public education steals value from private tutors. Also, how rainwater steals value from bottled water companies, fresh air steals value from air filter vendors, and sunlight steals value from the electric company.
- didibus 5y ago
  Libraries still pay for each copy of a book, and in some countries royalties are paid out each time the book is borrowed. The library is not allowed to make additional copies of a book and borrow them either. Public education pays its teachers. But overall I'm not in disagreement with you, you could say open source is done as part of the greater good and advancement of technology and computer science, and not for personal capital gain. That also means that it isn't meant to be a sustainable career path, or job that you can do full time though.
wolverine876 5y ago
I can understand the perspective. But it goes both ways: Aren't you (and I) 'stealing'? How much do you use open source, as a developer and as a user - and just to post his message: try enmuerating all the open source that goes into it. We benefit far more than we can ever repay.
- didibus 5y ago
  > How much do you use open source, as a developer and as a user As a user I agree, things would probably be more expensive if nothing was open source. But as a developer, I disagree, my employer would simply need to pay for the stuff I use, or they'd pay me or another developer to build them one. And this is precisely what the article argues, that companies should pay for it. If there wasn't any open source logging library, the maintainer could either work for a company that offers a paid one, start his own company, or work for a company that pays him to maintain one for them.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > But as a developer, I disagree, my employer would simply need to pay for the stuff I use, or they'd pay me or another developer to build them one. Good point, but you would have a much smaller industry and platform without FOSS, and there is no way you could build all the libraries, tools, etc., yourself. Even FAANG depends on FOSS. If everything had to be paid for and professionally developed, licensed, etc., there would be much less around, and nobody could fork and innovate - there's a reason people develop and use FOSS.
    - didibus 5y ago
      I think that's the counterargument, and I can imagine it being true, but I also think we just don't know. Maybe there'd be just as much advancement but more developers would be properly compensated. It's hard to say exactly what would have happened because we're talking an alternate history. Lowering the barrier to entry by being able to leverage a lot of free stuff probably helps make the industry bigger in having more startups, but I also can't say for sure there wouldn't be more jobs or higher paid jobs otherwise. In the end, I'm not trying to push to end FOSS, but I'm trying to bring to front the contradiction I'm seeing of people wanting FOSS but also wanting FOSS developers paid a full wage. It seems fundamentally at odds, if you want people working on logging libraries to be paid full wages, stop making FOSS logging libraries.
mk81 5y ago
orangecat 5y ago
This is just the broken window fallacy. Hobbyists giving away schematics for unbreakable windows are not stealing from your window repair business. Yes, having open source competition means you'll have to either build a superior product that customers are willing to pay for, or find another niche. That's a good thing.
- didibus 5y ago
  > That's a good thing Good has many dimensions. I'm saying that as a developer, FOSS means people don't need to pay you to build those things, only to use them, and that's why FOSS developers themselves don't get properly compensated, because they chose to build it for free. You could say FOSS is a good thing if you talked about computing progress, or barrier of entry for a startup wanting to build an app, or as a great source of example to learn from, etc. As for your comparison, I don't think it holds, because very rarely are FOSS contributors hobbyists, most of them are professionals. So it is much more akin to a professional window engineer giving away free schematics for unbreakable windows, which means that companies manufacturing unbreakable windows no longer need to pay a professional window engineer to make schematics for them.
- webmaven 5y ago
  > This is just the broken window fallacy. Hobbyists giving away schematics for unbreakable windows are not stealing from your window repair business. Of course, the smart glazier would figure out that giving away the schematics for a window-breaking device is in their interest. Commoditize your complements, as the saying goes.

Scarblac 5y ago

That's a good point. We as developers trying to make a living doing it are competing with an ever-expanding sea of OSS. And therefore we'd be mad to contribute to it, for free even. On the other hand, from the viewpoint of all of humanity, it is great that there exists a huge amount of software that is useable by everyone for free.

loudmax 5y ago

I guess in the same way that public libraries steal value from book publishers and public education steals value from private tutors. Also, how rainwater steals value from bottled water companies, fresh air steals value from air filter vendors, and sunlight steals value from the electric company.

didibus 5y ago
Libraries still pay for each copy of a book, and in some countries royalties are paid out each time the book is borrowed. The library is not allowed to make additional copies of a book and borrow them either. Public education pays its teachers. But overall I'm not in disagreement with you, you could say open source is done as part of the greater good and advancement of technology and computer science, and not for personal capital gain. That also means that it isn't meant to be a sustainable career path, or job that you can do full time though.

wolverine876 5y ago

I can understand the perspective. But it goes both ways: Aren't you (and I) 'stealing'? How much do you use open source, as a developer and as a user - and just to post his message: try enmuerating all the open source that goes into it. We benefit far more than we can ever repay.

didibus 5y ago
> How much do you use open source, as a developer and as a user As a user I agree, things would probably be more expensive if nothing was open source. But as a developer, I disagree, my employer would simply need to pay for the stuff I use, or they'd pay me or another developer to build them one. And this is precisely what the article argues, that companies should pay for it. If there wasn't any open source logging library, the maintainer could either work for a company that offers a paid one, start his own company, or work for a company that pays him to maintain one for them.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > But as a developer, I disagree, my employer would simply need to pay for the stuff I use, or they'd pay me or another developer to build them one. Good point, but you would have a much smaller industry and platform without FOSS, and there is no way you could build all the libraries, tools, etc., yourself. Even FAANG depends on FOSS. If everything had to be paid for and professionally developed, licensed, etc., there would be much less around, and nobody could fork and innovate - there's a reason people develop and use FOSS.
  - didibus 5y ago
    I think that's the counterargument, and I can imagine it being true, but I also think we just don't know. Maybe there'd be just as much advancement but more developers would be properly compensated. It's hard to say exactly what would have happened because we're talking an alternate history. Lowering the barrier to entry by being able to leverage a lot of free stuff probably helps make the industry bigger in having more startups, but I also can't say for sure there wouldn't be more jobs or higher paid jobs otherwise. In the end, I'm not trying to push to end FOSS, but I'm trying to bring to front the contradiction I'm seeing of people wanting FOSS but also wanting FOSS developers paid a full wage. It seems fundamentally at odds, if you want people working on logging libraries to be paid full wages, stop making FOSS logging libraries.

mk81 5y ago

orangecat 5y ago

This is just the broken window fallacy. Hobbyists giving away schematics for unbreakable windows are not stealing from your window repair business. Yes, having open source competition means you'll have to either build a superior product that customers are willing to pay for, or find another niche. That's a good thing.

didibus 5y ago
> That's a good thing Good has many dimensions. I'm saying that as a developer, FOSS means people don't need to pay you to build those things, only to use them, and that's why FOSS developers themselves don't get properly compensated, because they chose to build it for free. You could say FOSS is a good thing if you talked about computing progress, or barrier of entry for a startup wanting to build an app, or as a great source of example to learn from, etc. As for your comparison, I don't think it holds, because very rarely are FOSS contributors hobbyists, most of them are professionals. So it is much more akin to a professional window engineer giving away free schematics for unbreakable windows, which means that companies manufacturing unbreakable windows no longer need to pay a professional window engineer to make schematics for them.
webmaven 5y ago
> This is just the broken window fallacy. Hobbyists giving away schematics for unbreakable windows are not stealing from your window repair business. Of course, the smart glazier would figure out that giving away the schematics for a window-breaking device is in their interest. Commoditize your complements, as the saying goes.