5 ms·

I do free work for open source _a lot_. I have a rather controversial opinion on this. I don't think I should be paid for my work because the moment money comes

• franciscop 5y ago
  I have a different opinion, but I respect yours; and that's the basis of open source. There's many, many vastly different reasons why people do open source, and partly probably why we haven't "banded together to get paid" so to speak. For me, if I got donations that'd be great, but it'd not create a different sense of responsibility for my work, I'd keep doing exactly the same (unless I was explicitly hired as a contractor, but that's different). I do not particularly mind not being paid though, it's me who is putting my own code out there for people to use, for free! Now I make mainly open source JS libraries and use the fairly liberal MIT, if I worked in end-products where there might be a bit more of a "competition" or a big company might literally repackage/resell your product I might release those under a different license, like dual-licensed or similar.
  • bruce511 5y ago
    So, in essence, I think you're saying that you choose a license depending on your goals for a project. Which seems reasonable. More reasonable than folks who release under a license, then complain when others do exactly what the license allows. I see a lot of "but give nothing back" complaints from some open source folk, but I've looked hard and I don't see a "give something back" clause anywhere, at least not in the licenses I'm using. What I do see are "give something forward" clauses, which explicitly target customers, not suppliers. I like and use open source as much as the next guy, but for my day job I code for money. Alas so far Open Source pays no bills.
    • DarkWiiPlayer 5y ago
      > I don't see a "give something back" clause anywhere You're right about that, but there isn't a "this software works" clause either :D
  • ineedasername 5y ago
    >donations I think there is a big psychological difference (and maybe a legal one?) between accepting donations for something you put up for public access vs. accepting payment for doing work.
    • paulryanrogers 5y ago
      If so would that also impact 'backing' like KickStarter and Patreon?
      • ineedasername 5y ago
        I'm really not sure. I'd guess that, say, YouTubers who provide extras to Patreon supporters often feel a much higher sense of obligation. As for the legal aspect, I'm speculating based on just a bit of knowl she about contract law: If you give something as a donation, I don't think that constitutes a contract. If you give something with the promise or expectation (by all parties) of something in return then it begins to strongly look like a contract. I could imagine a lawsuit against a Patreon recipient if they collected $1m while promising something to supporters and never delivered. (I'm not sure people would bother with a lawsuit, but I could see grounds for one). I think it's a bit different if the exchange was more informal, like "Hey I'm making X for my own enjoyment, I hope you like it too. Click here if you want to send me coffee money" and then collected $1m on that but never finished the project. There's a lot of subtleties though, and plenty of contract disputes revolve around whether or not a contract existed in the first place (written, verbal, or implied) So, if you start saying "I will maintain foss project X if supporters average $Y/month" then I think that really muddies the water on legals obligations in many jurisdictions. It may not matter if you call them donations or not. After all even with donations to non profit there can be an expectation of return: a plaque on a wall, name on a building, etc.
• daenz 5y ago
  >I have always been successful convincing my employers that I do open source work on the side for my own interest. What do you need to convince your employers of?
  • msoad 5y ago
    Use my working hours contributing to Open Source.