3 ms·

> Money is not the only motivator in the world. Money + law are the media through which the most well-defined & extensible social structures are expressed. In

by mxkopy 4y ago

> Money is not the only motivator in the world. Money + law are the media through which the most well-defined & extensible social structures are expressed. In the U.S. (as example) it's nonstandard to work outside of this. Obviously they're not the same but the struggle of open source does seem to be one face of a much older struggle. How does someone engage in a sustainable, nonexploitative social contract. How do I trade my cool gizmos that have some benefit to society for food, without having to sell my soul or play some game. Etc.

mikl 4y ago
Everyone would like to get paid for doing their hobby, whether it’s music, sports or yes, programming. But very few have such superlative talent that they can make it as musicians or athletes. Getting paid for programming is comparatively easy, there’s lots of open jobs for all kinds of programming. We’re kinda privileged, really. When your engage in open source, you’re deliberately offering your labor for free, it’s right there in the license. So claiming that people are _exploiting_ you when they choose to accept _your offer_ of using the software _gratis_ is complete poppycock. There are some unhealthy dynamics in open source, but over-dramatising the problem with words like _exploitation_ is disingenuous, not helpful.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  "Exploit" has so many connotations. Think of it more like a technical description than a moral one and it fits better here IMHO.
- mxkopy 4y ago
  I think it's a bit more complicated than OSS is people that are willing to work for free - and that sort of conception, unfortunately, is why I also think it might not be sustainable. Social contracts are really the key here. What OSS is offering is something for a per-unit price of 0.00, for everyone, and without expectation of 'proper use'. Unfortunately, what OSS needs in return isn't well-defined even within the open-source community itself. But it certainly does need something. Otherwise it wouldn't be a social contract, i.e. be able to exist for very long.

by mxkopy 4y ago

mikl 4y ago

Everyone would like to get paid for doing their hobby, whether it’s music, sports or yes, programming. But very few have such superlative talent that they can make it as musicians or athletes. Getting paid for programming is comparatively easy, there’s lots of open jobs for all kinds of programming. We’re kinda privileged, really. When your engage in open source, you’re deliberately offering your labor for free, it’s right there in the license. So claiming that people are _exploiting_ you when they choose to accept _your offer_ of using the software _gratis_ is complete poppycock. There are some unhealthy dynamics in open source, but over-dramatising the problem with words like _exploitation_ is disingenuous, not helpful.

actionfromafar 4y ago
"Exploit" has so many connotations. Think of it more like a technical description than a moral one and it fits better here IMHO.
mxkopy 4y ago
I think it's a bit more complicated than OSS is people that are willing to work for free - and that sort of conception, unfortunately, is why I also think it might not be sustainable. Social contracts are really the key here. What OSS is offering is something for a per-unit price of 0.00, for everyone, and without expectation of 'proper use'. Unfortunately, what OSS needs in return isn't well-defined even within the open-source community itself. But it certainly does need something. Otherwise it wouldn't be a social contract, i.e. be able to exist for very long.