5 ms·

Well, it's a bit like you organize, at personal cost, and for all the right reasons and out of the goodness of your heart, a food-bank, free to anyone who needs

Well, it's a bit like you organize, at personal cost, and for all the right reasons and out of the goodness of your heart, a food-bank, free to anyone who needs food. And then the CEO of megacorp sends employees to come everyday and empty your foodbank and serve the food at the company canteen, because this saves the company catering money, and thus profit. Yes, technically everyone's welcome at your food bank, but ... it won't be long before you'd stop doing it, right?

ocdtrekkie 4y ago
Yep. And I've now had discussions with OSI leadership that even more entrench for me that this is working as intended as far as they are concerned.
Chris2048 4y ago
..in a world where food can be duplicated for nothing.. this is RIAA logic. The implied nature of a food bank is providing food to those in need - I've yet to see a software where the implication is that the wealthy can't use it.
- tpoacher 4y ago
  You extended the analogy beyond the point it was addressing; if you do that you might as well start talking about the obesity epidemic or food allergies or whatnot. The point being made is that people getting upset when they are made to feel like their altruism is taken advantage of, let alone abused to ends that are against the spirit of the original work, and getting disillusioned and abandoning projects of love, is quite a natural and altogether human reaction. OP said they didn't get why anyone would/should be particularly upset by megacorps using their open source software in perhaps not the manner originally envisaged. I was simply trying to come up with a more relatable example to relate why. The induplicability of food is completely irrelevant here.
  - Chris2048 4y ago
    The point is that "spirit of the original work" needs to explicit, not everyone who uses a software should have to have personal insight into the mind of the dev. > The induplicability of food is completely irrelevant here. Then in what sense is the metaphor valuable? It was merely meant to depict an emotion that the humans on this forum will already be well aware of?

ocdtrekkie 4y ago

Yep. And I've now had discussions with OSI leadership that even more entrench for me that this is working as intended as far as they are concerned.

Chris2048 4y ago

..in a world where food can be duplicated for nothing.. this is RIAA logic. The implied nature of a food bank is providing food to those in need - I've yet to see a software where the implication is that the wealthy can't use it.

tpoacher 4y ago
You extended the analogy beyond the point it was addressing; if you do that you might as well start talking about the obesity epidemic or food allergies or whatnot. The point being made is that people getting upset when they are made to feel like their altruism is taken advantage of, let alone abused to ends that are against the spirit of the original work, and getting disillusioned and abandoning projects of love, is quite a natural and altogether human reaction. OP said they didn't get why anyone would/should be particularly upset by megacorps using their open source software in perhaps not the manner originally envisaged. I was simply trying to come up with a more relatable example to relate why. The induplicability of food is completely irrelevant here.
- Chris2048 4y ago
  The point is that "spirit of the original work" needs to explicit, not everyone who uses a software should have to have personal insight into the mind of the dev. > The induplicability of food is completely irrelevant here. Then in what sense is the metaphor valuable? It was merely meant to depict an emotion that the humans on this forum will already be well aware of?