3 ms·

This is why I think that open source / free software is the greatest trick that late stage capitalism ever pulled. It exploits the generosity and naivity of dev

This is why I think that open source / free software is the greatest trick that late stage capitalism ever pulled. It exploits the generosity and naivity of devs who have committed to a particular ideology that, while well motivated at the start, has nevertheless turned out to be extremely easily exploited by corporations who now essentially get an enormous amount of labour for free. What's more there is intense social pressure from large segments of the dev community to both contribute to open source and to publicly endorse and promote "open source values". Even the author refuses to acknowledge that the problem with open source is open source licensing. Dropping the non discrimination clause in open source licenses and demanding payment for labour from large companies, would be enough to solve all these issues. But that is anathema to the ideologues who dominate the conversation.

nivenkos 4y ago
It'd be much less so if the developers actually used the AGPL and GPLv3+ etc. Adding payment makes things complicated internationally, etc. though.
hutzlibu 4y ago
"Dropping the non discrimination clause in open source licenses and demanding payment for labour from large companies, would be enough to solve all these issues. " Yes indeed, it would solve all these issues by making companies not use that software anymore and rather have someone rewrite essential parts under a standard proprietary licence.
- krageon 4y ago
  Good riddance. Corporations getting rich on the backs of unpaid labour that is far more skilled than anything they'll ever have in-house is a travesty.
Ferret7446 4y ago
People being too generous for their own good was not invented in the 20th century. If a dev doesn't want to work (with or without pay as the case may be), they can just... not. That is not a fault of the license, which the dev themselves applied to their code, especially when the license explicitly states that the dev is not obligated to provide any support or additional work.
black_puppydog 4y ago
> I think that open source / free software is the greatest trick I'd argue the greatest trick was to have people believe that open source and free software are the same thing, when in actual fact free software addresses pretty much the points you raise. Nothing stops a dev from providing a commercial license for a gpl library (if they hold the copyright or have a corresponding cla of course) and I can tell from experience that companies are happy to pay non negligible amounts for these if they're useful.

nivenkos 4y ago

It'd be much less so if the developers actually used the AGPL and GPLv3+ etc. Adding payment makes things complicated internationally, etc. though.

hutzlibu 4y ago

"Dropping the non discrimination clause in open source licenses and demanding payment for labour from large companies, would be enough to solve all these issues. " Yes indeed, it would solve all these issues by making companies not use that software anymore and rather have someone rewrite essential parts under a standard proprietary licence.

krageon 4y ago
Good riddance. Corporations getting rich on the backs of unpaid labour that is far more skilled than anything they'll ever have in-house is a travesty.

Ferret7446 4y ago

People being too generous for their own good was not invented in the 20th century. If a dev doesn't want to work (with or without pay as the case may be), they can just... not. That is not a fault of the license, which the dev themselves applied to their code, especially when the license explicitly states that the dev is not obligated to provide any support or additional work.

black_puppydog 4y ago

> I think that open source / free software is the greatest trick I'd argue the greatest trick was to have people believe that open source and free software are the same thing, when in actual fact free software addresses pretty much the points you raise. Nothing stops a dev from providing a commercial license for a gpl library (if they hold the copyright or have a corresponding cla of course) and I can tell from experience that companies are happy to pay non negligible amounts for these if they're useful.