3 ms·
It’s a good analogy and I do understand the perspective. But I think it is very convenient that it applies to the work these people want to consume (which shou
by tene80i 4y ago
It’s a good analogy and I do understand the perspective.
But I think it is very convenient that it applies to the work these people want to consume (which should be free), and not to the work they perform (which should be paid).
Why should the software engineer be paid but the author not? Why is the written word information but not the code?
I would trust the motives more if there was a general coherence to it all, beyond the consumption of media. Information comes in many forms.
- IggleSniggle 4y agoI generally assume that when people talk like that, that they believe that software engineers should not be paid, and that they get over their cognitive dissonance by saying something on the order of, “but since they are paid there’s no point in me working for free,” without noticing that there’s still a disconnect there. There’s a very big Open Source / Free as in Freedom / AND Free as in Beer contingent on HN.
- kybernetikos 4y agoUsually these kinds of views come along with ideas about other models that can recompense creators (including software engineers). For example, the Lawyer example is used often - once the lawyer makes the argument, it's in the public domain and can be used by others, but you still pay the lawyer to compose the argument. There are also models where the durable software artifacts are free, but you pay people to support your use of them. Then there are the older models that used to be used a lot in the music and art world. A wealthy benefactor (or in this day and age, crowd) pays for a trusted artist / musican / architect / coder to create something, both for their enjoyment but also for their fame and renown.