5 ms·

> If he doesn’t owe us anything, then we also don’t owe him anything. Perhaps he’d like to take back his code and the rest of the world can take back all the op

by vore 4y ago

> If he doesn’t owe us anything, then we also don’t owe him anything. Perhaps he’d like to take back his code and the rest of the world can take back all the opportunities and other things he’s been given In exchange. I feel like this is a rather silly take. Book-writing, speaking, etc opportunities are not ongoing burdens like open source maintainership. Even job opportunities you can choose to quit. I think ultimately if people are doing things for free you can't ask too much of them since they are well within their right to stop doing it for any capricious reason.

TimPC 4y ago
I feel like you’re taking the author out of context. His point is that without the open-source work fewer opportunities would exist for the person doing it. So it’s a bit disingenuous to act like you do all of this “purely for free” when it’s more like “self-marketing”. I get how imposing on people doing the former can be unreasonable, but asking things of people doing the later seems quite fair.
- ConstantVigil 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - TimPC 4y ago
    The original author seemed to think so and the regular speaking engagements and book deals seem consistent with that. It might not be the exclusive reason but it certainly seems a factor.
    - ConstantVigil 4y ago
skybrian 4y ago
Yeah, the second sentence isn't a great argument because it's a voluntary relationship, you can quit at any time, and that doesn't mean you have to give back any benefits you received. In particular, you can quit maintaining an open source package, or stop publishing it in an index and let someone fork it. (Maybe you feel a little guilty, but that seems like a feeling to get over if it's not working out for you.) But it still works both ways. If you're not finding it fun anymore, that doesn't say anything in itself about who, if anyone, is to blame.

by vore 4y ago

TimPC 4y ago

I feel like you’re taking the author out of context. His point is that without the open-source work fewer opportunities would exist for the person doing it. So it’s a bit disingenuous to act like you do all of this “purely for free” when it’s more like “self-marketing”. I get how imposing on people doing the former can be unreasonable, but asking things of people doing the later seems quite fair.

ConstantVigil 4y ago
[flagged]
- TimPC 4y ago
  The original author seemed to think so and the regular speaking engagements and book deals seem consistent with that. It might not be the exclusive reason but it certainly seems a factor.
  - ConstantVigil 4y ago

skybrian 4y ago

Yeah, the second sentence isn't a great argument because it's a voluntary relationship, you can quit at any time, and that doesn't mean you have to give back any benefits you received. In particular, you can quit maintaining an open source package, or stop publishing it in an index and let someone fork it. (Maybe you feel a little guilty, but that seems like a feeling to get over if it's not working out for you.) But it still works both ways. If you're not finding it fun anymore, that doesn't say anything in itself about who, if anyone, is to blame.