4 ms·

As someone trying to make a living out of my OSS work, this kind of clickbait titles really get on my nerves. Just yesterday, like most week a company did conta

As someone trying to make a living out of my OSS work, this kind of clickbait titles really get on my nerves. Just yesterday, like most week a company did contact me to get support but when sent a payment link and instead of ignoring me took the path of questioning why would they pay for OSS. This kind of behaviour is so common, I have a canned answer for all those companies oss attracts trying to get things for free: OSS doesn't mean free labour and I value my time. FYI I would have made better money flipping burgers than working on this and I can't realistically extend that principle to help everyone on the internet with a rate that's below minimum wage where I live.

II2II 4y ago
The author did say that open source maintainers should be paid and was harsh about exploitive corporations. They were simply stating that we should not expect the maintenance problem to be solved by paying developers. Whether that's true or not is debatable. Historically, some have certainly made a living off of developing OSS since their work was valued enough for someone to hire them or because there have been people willing to pay for their services. On the other hand, many more have not been given that opportunity. Perhaps paying them will solve the maintenance problem, or perhaps it will only reveal other underlying hurdles with open source development.
- mickael-kerjean 4y ago
  > was harsh about exploitive corporations taken from the article: "it’s not a problem to be solved, it’s a consequence to be embraced and exploited (if you’re clever enough)" another interesting quote: "Microsoft and other companies railed about Open Source being a cancer on intellectual property: because it is" none of the points made by the author are fundamental truth and most of his actual points are in direct opposition to what I do in my own OSS bubble everyday
  - somrand0 4y ago
    > another interesting quote: "Microsoft and other companies railed about Open Source being a cancer on intellectual property: because it is" well, that's wrong because Microsoft and other companies were worried about free (and therefore, open source) software. IMO, open source (without any mention of the ideological aspect of liberty and freedom) is/was their remedy for this
  - TAForObvReasons 4y ago
    Read the sentence in its entirety, dropping the parenthetical comment: > If you follow the above, you’ll see the supposed “free rider” problem is simply a natural consequence of open source being free as in beer: it’s not a problem to be solved, it’s a consequence to be embraced and exploited. "to be embraced and exploiting" is referring to the consequence, not to the open source developers. What the author is trying to say is that a large segment of the users of open source software are using it because it is free as in beer. That sounds like a problem, and it is if you are narrow-mindedly thinking about how to monetize the open source software directly. But there are other ways for open source developers to take advantage of the opportunity.
    - II2II 4y ago
      That is how I read the bit about exploitation as well. > That sounds like a problem, and it is if you are narrow-mindedly thinking about how to monetize the open source software directly. That may be true, but there is another thing to consider: earning a living by running a business is challenging. Many people do not earn enough money for it to be worth while. Most will have to put up with other businesses trying to freeload, or at the very least cut an unreasonable deal. It is easy to claim the difficulties with open source exist because the software is free (as in beer). Indeed, it is probably more difficult to make money because of that. On the other hand, it is also a difficulty faced by all businesses.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
throw903290 4y ago
OSS is business as any other, there is no need to take it personally. Be happy you discovered toxic customer before even signing contract.
WrtCdEvrydy 4y ago
> instead of ignoring me took the path of questioning why would they pay for OSS. Sorry, I thought you wanted support, not a therapist... Here's a local listing of professionals nearby.
varispeed 4y ago
Corporations use OSS for avoidance of paying tax and labour. There is plenty of activist, idealist developers that can be tricked into doing work corporations need but without receiving remuneration. That's why OSS is being championed by big corporations as it saves them a ton of money that they otherwise would have to spend on R&D etc. With OSS they can cherry pick ripe OSS projects, appropriate them and use to make millions or even billions and original developers won't see a penny. You know you may get the so called "exposure", but try to pay your rent with it. OSS really needs to be regulated, so that for profit businesses pay OSS contributors living wages at very least, if they use their projects.
- TAForObvReasons 4y ago
  The hard truth is that these "for profit businesses" wouldn't use many of the projects if they weren't free and open source in the first place. This is why the moral argument falls on deaf ears. Relicensing is an increasingly popular choice for OSS devs to to try to monetize usage, and it works since it is oftentimes cheaper to just pay than to rewrite software.
  - varispeed 4y ago
    > The hard truth is that these "for profit businesses" wouldn't use many of the projects if they weren't free and open source in the first place. This is why the moral argument falls on deaf ears. There is no evidence for that. If something is good for business and cheaper to buy than develop in-house, business will buy. > Relicensing is an increasingly popular choice for OSS devs to to try to monetize usage, and it works since it is oftentimes cheaper to just pay than to rewrite software. This is great to see that more and more projects offer dual licensing, but this really should be regulated, so that developers won't be bullied into giving up fruits of their work for free. This would also create the level playing field where developers from disadvantaged background could participate in OSS knowing they'll be able to put food on their table if they commit time and their skill into it. Currently, OSS is really a domain of people with privilege, who have the luxury of being able to spend time doing unpaid work. They then often get advantage when being hired, by having OSS projects in their CV, whereas someone who is struggling financially can't afford to work on OSS. Many employers look for OSS contributions and that gives people with privilege an edge.
phkahler 4y ago
I just thought of another possible explanation to give them. "All software has a marginal cost of $0, so all effort is in improvements and that still needs to be paid for."
sieabahlpark 4y ago

II2II 4y ago

The author did say that open source maintainers should be paid and was harsh about exploitive corporations. They were simply stating that we should not expect the maintenance problem to be solved by paying developers. Whether that's true or not is debatable. Historically, some have certainly made a living off of developing OSS since their work was valued enough for someone to hire them or because there have been people willing to pay for their services. On the other hand, many more have not been given that opportunity. Perhaps paying them will solve the maintenance problem, or perhaps it will only reveal other underlying hurdles with open source development.

mickael-kerjean 4y ago
> was harsh about exploitive corporations taken from the article: "it’s not a problem to be solved, it’s a consequence to be embraced and exploited (if you’re clever enough)" another interesting quote: "Microsoft and other companies railed about Open Source being a cancer on intellectual property: because it is" none of the points made by the author are fundamental truth and most of his actual points are in direct opposition to what I do in my own OSS bubble everyday
- somrand0 4y ago
  > another interesting quote: "Microsoft and other companies railed about Open Source being a cancer on intellectual property: because it is" well, that's wrong because Microsoft and other companies were worried about free (and therefore, open source) software. IMO, open source (without any mention of the ideological aspect of liberty and freedom) is/was their remedy for this
- TAForObvReasons 4y ago
  Read the sentence in its entirety, dropping the parenthetical comment: > If you follow the above, you’ll see the supposed “free rider” problem is simply a natural consequence of open source being free as in beer: it’s not a problem to be solved, it’s a consequence to be embraced and exploited. "to be embraced and exploiting" is referring to the consequence, not to the open source developers. What the author is trying to say is that a large segment of the users of open source software are using it because it is free as in beer. That sounds like a problem, and it is if you are narrow-mindedly thinking about how to monetize the open source software directly. But there are other ways for open source developers to take advantage of the opportunity.
  - II2II 4y ago
    That is how I read the bit about exploitation as well. > That sounds like a problem, and it is if you are narrow-mindedly thinking about how to monetize the open source software directly. That may be true, but there is another thing to consider: earning a living by running a business is challenging. Many people do not earn enough money for it to be worth while. Most will have to put up with other businesses trying to freeload, or at the very least cut an unreasonable deal. It is easy to claim the difficulties with open source exist because the software is free (as in beer). Indeed, it is probably more difficult to make money because of that. On the other hand, it is also a difficulty faced by all businesses.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

throw903290 4y ago

OSS is business as any other, there is no need to take it personally. Be happy you discovered toxic customer before even signing contract.

WrtCdEvrydy 4y ago

> instead of ignoring me took the path of questioning why would they pay for OSS. Sorry, I thought you wanted support, not a therapist... Here's a local listing of professionals nearby.

varispeed 4y ago

Corporations use OSS for avoidance of paying tax and labour. There is plenty of activist, idealist developers that can be tricked into doing work corporations need but without receiving remuneration. That's why OSS is being championed by big corporations as it saves them a ton of money that they otherwise would have to spend on R&D etc. With OSS they can cherry pick ripe OSS projects, appropriate them and use to make millions or even billions and original developers won't see a penny. You know you may get the so called "exposure", but try to pay your rent with it. OSS really needs to be regulated, so that for profit businesses pay OSS contributors living wages at very least, if they use their projects.

TAForObvReasons 4y ago
The hard truth is that these "for profit businesses" wouldn't use many of the projects if they weren't free and open source in the first place. This is why the moral argument falls on deaf ears. Relicensing is an increasingly popular choice for OSS devs to to try to monetize usage, and it works since it is oftentimes cheaper to just pay than to rewrite software.
- varispeed 4y ago
  > The hard truth is that these "for profit businesses" wouldn't use many of the projects if they weren't free and open source in the first place. This is why the moral argument falls on deaf ears. There is no evidence for that. If something is good for business and cheaper to buy than develop in-house, business will buy. > Relicensing is an increasingly popular choice for OSS devs to to try to monetize usage, and it works since it is oftentimes cheaper to just pay than to rewrite software. This is great to see that more and more projects offer dual licensing, but this really should be regulated, so that developers won't be bullied into giving up fruits of their work for free. This would also create the level playing field where developers from disadvantaged background could participate in OSS knowing they'll be able to put food on their table if they commit time and their skill into it. Currently, OSS is really a domain of people with privilege, who have the luxury of being able to spend time doing unpaid work. They then often get advantage when being hired, by having OSS projects in their CV, whereas someone who is struggling financially can't afford to work on OSS. Many employers look for OSS contributions and that gives people with privilege an edge.

phkahler 4y ago

I just thought of another possible explanation to give them. "All software has a marginal cost of $0, so all effort is in improvements and that still needs to be paid for."

sieabahlpark 4y ago