2 ms·
> Now suppose I were able to get people to pay me peanuts (through donations for the sake of the argument) to maintain some critical software because, you know,
by PoignardAzur 4y ago
> Now suppose I were able to get people to pay me peanuts (through donations for the sake of the argument) to maintain some critical software because, you know, “someone has to do it and this guy will work for peanuts”, just how many luxuries am I expected to do without to comply with some overbearing regulation?
That's a weirdly specific hypothetical.
In this situation, we're assuming the regulation is morally responsible for you living an austere life and not, like... you for choosing to pick the job instead of other better-paid software jobs, or the software users for not being willing to pay for critical software they depend on? And the regulation is therefore immoral if it costs any non-zero amount to anybody to comply with it, even if that amount is low?
- UncleEntity 4y agoWhat I’m really saying is they are pushing the burden of compliance on someone who just so happens to be professional because some people think they are providing a service they find useful enough to toss them a few bucks here and there — like a ton of FLOSS projects with a “buy me a beer” donations button. In a weirdly specific manner because once I get started on an idea it just flows. Either they take absolutely no compensation or they are responsible for (probably costly because government) compliance measures if some bureaucrat finds the project “critical” without them intentionally producing “critical software”.