3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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.