5 ms·

Yes. But I think it also shows a common misunderstanding of "open source" (and even "free software"). What he did was incredibly valuable to a huge number of s

Yes. But I think it also shows a common misunderstanding of "open source" (and even "free software"). What he did was incredibly valuable to a huge number of successful people and corporations. But no one owes him anything. That's the point of open source. If they did owe him something, they wouldn't have used it. They used it because it was great, it was established/known, it was available with no strings attached whatsoever. Again, that's the point, that's why it's popular. But also, he owes them nothing. He doesn't have to keep maintaining the most comprehensive, up-to-date, and flexible package, as a full-time job, for free. He could could have just stopped after his first couple years where it was an inherently fulfilling passion project, he could just put in a couple hours a week, whatever. People would make do, it would still be quite valuable for a lot of people for a long time. Or those other projects and companies would come up with an more up-to-date alternative when really needed. You really don't have to be a martyr, and we don't have to "give up on open source" or whatever. You can just make stuff available that you wanted to do anyway. Sometimes it leads to bigger opportunities, sometimes (usually?) not. Don't slave away and sacrifice your personal life because of what you think you deserve if you do, that's not going to materialize that way. Remember this is all stuff just offered up with NO WARRANTY, NOT EVEN FITNESS FOR PURPOSE etc. And in practice it's super super valuable that way. Even without you sacrificing yourself. Let companies spend the big bucks on it, just work on what's fun in your free time.

EdwardDiego 4y ago
> But no one owes him anything. I strongly disagree. Only because so many people feel that he owes them something.
- ebjaas_2022 4y ago
  It's the nature of most types of volunteering work. If you sign up to be the conductor of your local choir, you have the same thing. People start expecting you to do stuff. If you're going to be in that role, as ploxiln says, you need to be OK with that part of it. You have to be OK with the thanklessness of the task, and you have to seek your rewards elsewhere. Still, I feel very sorry for zloirock, and I hope that he gets some kind of compensation for his work, at least enough to get his life back together.
  - newswasboring 4y ago
    > You have to be OK with the thanklessness of the task, and you have to seek your rewards elsewhere. Is this really how we want the world to be? Someone who is trying to help needs to be ok with being treated badly? I can understand not being put on a pedestal, but I think a "thank you" and a bit of gratefulness is warranted by people actively being helped.
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      The best way to do open source work is to consult or be employed and release open source stuff as part of your work. Otherwise it turns into politics, competition for money and popularity contest rather than product of passion. If you are as proficient as this guy you will find employers that do not mind open source work
      - newswasboring 4y ago
        ... This guy wasn't able to find an employer like that, no?
        throwaway290 4y ago
        Did he look though? Maybe he is not aware this is a possibility. Even if he cannot leave Russia there are likely russian companies that would pay him and be even happy if he contributes to OSS. I know Qiwi, Yandex publish and maintain packages
        newswasboring 4y ago
        Yeah but if the statement is a guy like this could find something like this, then the answer is no. I think mostly because it's not entirely clear how to get such a job and how to do that job without handing over the reigns of your project to the company.
        4y ago
ranger207 4y ago
For a while it was a trend for people to use userscripts to delete their old comments on various social media sites after a certain amount of time. I think this practice is unfair, because the user gets the benefits of participating in open conversation but tries not to pay the (IMO absolutely minuscule) costs in terms of privacy. I see a lot of open source use the same way. Companies use open-source contributions but don't contribute back any of the value they receive. I'm strongly in favor of using strict GPL licensing or dual licensing for corporate and nonprofit use for every open source project. I know people like the MIT license so that people will use their projects, but fundamentally if you want open source to continue then open source contributions need to be enforced, because otherwise it doesn't happen
- throwawayclown 4y ago
  [flagged]
WorldMaker 4y ago
> But no one owes him anything. I think the disagreement here will continue indefinitely because it is a question of (personal and professional) ethics. Ethics doesn't necessarily offer easy answers, just sometimes hard questions. In every discussion like this on HN you see the direct conflict of several competing Ethical Frameworks that people choose to live by which is why the discussion will likely always recur and it will always seem like two or more teams talking past each other. "What do we owe to each other?" is a massive, hard ethical question. It's not just an easy economic question with an answer of "well he did the work for free, so obviously it is priced at free" though many ethical frameworks, especially on HN, happily stop there. Some ethical frameworks, on the other hand, don't believe there is any such thing as "free labor", just "exploited labor" and find guilt in every bit of open source usage, expect some amount "owed" in backpay to eventually pay back. Some of those same ethical frameworks still feel that "open source" is an ideal, a community good, but also think that for the health of the community as a whole, some support needs to be given to individuals in that community when/where/as they need it, for the good of the whole, and that both things can be true: "open source creates good software" and "open source sometimes creates the conditions to exploit labor (and we owe it to ourselves to mitigate that)". I can't tell anyone what their ethical framework should be, just that this discussion will likely remain an impasse because it is about personal and professional ethics. How much I feel that I owe the most exploited of the workers in our industry, is something that keeps me up at night sometimes, and that guilt doesn't come from "nowhere" and I'm well aware of the economics and the license agreements in play: that guilt comes from the ethical frameworks that I hold dear and am unlikely to waver on.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
> But no one owes him anything. He's the maintainer of a major software library. Everyone who depends on his work does owe him gratitude and respect. They'd have to pay me big bucks to care enough to do what he did, so I respect him for doing it.

EdwardDiego 4y ago

> But no one owes him anything. I strongly disagree. Only because so many people feel that he owes them something.

ebjaas_2022 4y ago
It's the nature of most types of volunteering work. If you sign up to be the conductor of your local choir, you have the same thing. People start expecting you to do stuff. If you're going to be in that role, as ploxiln says, you need to be OK with that part of it. You have to be OK with the thanklessness of the task, and you have to seek your rewards elsewhere. Still, I feel very sorry for zloirock, and I hope that he gets some kind of compensation for his work, at least enough to get his life back together.
- newswasboring 4y ago
  > You have to be OK with the thanklessness of the task, and you have to seek your rewards elsewhere. Is this really how we want the world to be? Someone who is trying to help needs to be ok with being treated badly? I can understand not being put on a pedestal, but I think a "thank you" and a bit of gratefulness is warranted by people actively being helped.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    The best way to do open source work is to consult or be employed and release open source stuff as part of your work. Otherwise it turns into politics, competition for money and popularity contest rather than product of passion. If you are as proficient as this guy you will find employers that do not mind open source work
    - newswasboring 4y ago
      ... This guy wasn't able to find an employer like that, no?
      - throwaway290 4y ago
        Did he look though? Maybe he is not aware this is a possibility. Even if he cannot leave Russia there are likely russian companies that would pay him and be even happy if he contributes to OSS. I know Qiwi, Yandex publish and maintain packages
        newswasboring 4y ago
        Yeah but if the statement is a guy like this could find something like this, then the answer is no. I think mostly because it's not entirely clear how to get such a job and how to do that job without handing over the reigns of your project to the company.
        4y ago

ranger207 4y ago

For a while it was a trend for people to use userscripts to delete their old comments on various social media sites after a certain amount of time. I think this practice is unfair, because the user gets the benefits of participating in open conversation but tries not to pay the (IMO absolutely minuscule) costs in terms of privacy. I see a lot of open source use the same way. Companies use open-source contributions but don't contribute back any of the value they receive. I'm strongly in favor of using strict GPL licensing or dual licensing for corporate and nonprofit use for every open source project. I know people like the MIT license so that people will use their projects, but fundamentally if you want open source to continue then open source contributions need to be enforced, because otherwise it doesn't happen

throwawayclown 4y ago
[flagged]

WorldMaker 4y ago

> But no one owes him anything. I think the disagreement here will continue indefinitely because it is a question of (personal and professional) ethics. Ethics doesn't necessarily offer easy answers, just sometimes hard questions. In every discussion like this on HN you see the direct conflict of several competing Ethical Frameworks that people choose to live by which is why the discussion will likely always recur and it will always seem like two or more teams talking past each other. "What do we owe to each other?" is a massive, hard ethical question. It's not just an easy economic question with an answer of "well he did the work for free, so obviously it is priced at free" though many ethical frameworks, especially on HN, happily stop there. Some ethical frameworks, on the other hand, don't believe there is any such thing as "free labor", just "exploited labor" and find guilt in every bit of open source usage, expect some amount "owed" in backpay to eventually pay back. Some of those same ethical frameworks still feel that "open source" is an ideal, a community good, but also think that for the health of the community as a whole, some support needs to be given to individuals in that community when/where/as they need it, for the good of the whole, and that both things can be true: "open source creates good software" and "open source sometimes creates the conditions to exploit labor (and we owe it to ourselves to mitigate that)". I can't tell anyone what their ethical framework should be, just that this discussion will likely remain an impasse because it is about personal and professional ethics. How much I feel that I owe the most exploited of the workers in our industry, is something that keeps me up at night sometimes, and that guilt doesn't come from "nowhere" and I'm well aware of the economics and the license agreements in play: that guilt comes from the ethical frameworks that I hold dear and am unlikely to waver on.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> But no one owes him anything. He's the maintainer of a major software library. Everyone who depends on his work does owe him gratitude and respect. They'd have to pay me big bucks to care enough to do what he did, so I respect him for doing it.