3 ms·

> The profit motive ruins a lot. "I think it's fine for me to make money off certain things, but not for others" and "You're not doing it the right way" is jus

> The profit motive ruins a lot. "I think it's fine for me to make money off certain things, but not for others" and "You're not doing it the right way" is just not a defensible position. It's like those teachers from an earlier time. Yes, it was really nice for some. We had small classes and a very high quality of instruction, but at the expense of some people were not getting paid what they were worth. NCAA is another good example. You may like the idea of the student athlete or playing for the spirit of the game, but is that fair to a kid who wants to use his name, image, and likeness rights to make money for himself? Does it make more sense for the university or the NCAA to own these rights? > I've run into issues trying to contribute back upstream because it didn't meet the needs of their corporate sponsors. What you're saying is -- the problem will exist no matter what we do. I think it's better that people get paid, if we can pay them. > And devs are hardly starving to begin with. And software companies are definitely not starving either. The most advantaged persons in this distorted economy are the users. Having Amazon pay a few dollars is not going to hurt anyone. > The small ones aren't making anyone rich and IMO they shouldn't. I agree the article's particular model is not the one I would have chosen. I think there are better ways to do this. See my other comments for how I might do it.

solardev 4y ago
What? There's nothing stopping any dev from charging for their OSS software (and many do, whether individually or as a core part of their business, like Red Hat). I'm not anti-people-charging for software, whenever they want. I just don't want OSS communities taken over by profiteering, the same way that the Android marketplace became a cesspool for get-rich-quick crappy apps, or YouTube is filled with automated advertising spam, or the Stack-republishing spam sites. Monetization destroys organic communities -- that's my problem with it. It's one thing to say teachers should get paid more -- and I fully agree -- another thing to say that say that volunteers contributing to a community project need to be fairly compensated. When you start paying volunteers, it both changes the underlying motives, attracts different kinds of contributors, and also diminishes the emotional reward of their work. Not saying people can't get paid for indie projects and free (as in freedom) projects, but that there is also value in free (as in dollars) software -- not really just because it's free, but because it creates a different kind of culture and community around it.

solardev 4y ago

What? There's nothing stopping any dev from charging for their OSS software (and many do, whether individually or as a core part of their business, like Red Hat). I'm not anti-people-charging for software, whenever they want. I just don't want OSS communities taken over by profiteering, the same way that the Android marketplace became a cesspool for get-rich-quick crappy apps, or YouTube is filled with automated advertising spam, or the Stack-republishing spam sites. Monetization destroys organic communities -- that's my problem with it. It's one thing to say teachers should get paid more -- and I fully agree -- another thing to say that say that volunteers contributing to a community project need to be fairly compensated. When you start paying volunteers, it both changes the underlying motives, attracts different kinds of contributors, and also diminishes the emotional reward of their work. Not saying people can't get paid for indie projects and free (as in freedom) projects, but that there is also value in free (as in dollars) software -- not really just because it's free, but because it creates a different kind of culture and community around it.