5 ms·

Magit is brilliant. It makes me more effective at my job, thanks for all the hard work all the contributors have put into it over the years! Just signed up to

by AJRF 4y ago

Magit is brilliant. It makes me more effective at my job, thanks for all the hard work all the contributors have put into it over the years! Just signed up to be a monthly sponsor, because when push comes to shove - Magit brings me more value than something like Netflix. I struggle with doing the math on open source software in my head often. I.e; Netflix is fun, I get to watch nice content! vs This free thing is bloody great, I am so happy its free...oh hang on, someone needs to spend a load of time making it so good. I want to live in a world where more stuff is free to use for all, but sponsored by the "market", so the amount of effect is maximised, while the economics are maintainable to keeping the impact open to all. What a tricky problem to solve at scale because of the tragedy of the commons (As in; "I'm sure someone - not me - will be a sponsor for this project")

zelphirkalt 4y ago
> What a tricky problem to solve at scale because of the tragedy of the commons (As in; "I'm sure someone - not me - will be a sponsor for this project") It is only tricky, if we make it tricky. Basically if one can afford it and really values something, then one should support it. That way all the people, who cannot currently afford to support it, can continue benefitting from it. As a second and much later thought only, one can still look at how much support a project is getting and whether anyone can live on that, maintaining the project. Often we should ask ourselves: "What if everyone acts like I plan to act?" (basically Kant's version of the golden rule) -- That way it becomes clear, that the project would die, because if everyone thinks "Surely someone else will support it." then obviously no one will support it. I think there has at least been some shift towards supporting great creators in recent years, but there is still a long wait to go until we: > [...] live in a world where more stuff is free to use for all, but sponsored by the "market", so the amount of effect is maximised, while the economics are maintainable to keeping the impact open to all.
- AJRF 4y ago
  Well you've just sort of described the aforementioned tragedy of the commons again here, the trickiness is inherent and emergent in human nature, and that is _why_ it is tricky. "That which is common to the greatest number gets the least amount of care. Men pay most attention to what is their own: they care less for what is common."
  - asymmetric 4y ago
    Btw this argument (that the TotC is a consequence of human nature) has been debunked several times (see the wikipedia article for a few). Hardin sets up a very specific scenario, and draws conclusions about human nature from it. This is a fallacy.
FishInTheWater 4y ago
> What a tricky problem to solve at scale because of the tragedy of the commons (As in; "I'm sure someone - not me - will be a sponsor for this project") We have solutions for tragedies of the commons like this: Professional Associations, Unions, and Guilds. They have the ability to raise funds through their membership fees, and can then spend that money on the common good. Membership can be 'encouraged' by requiring payment for commercial use if the company/it's employees aren't part of the association. This solution is just not very popular, partly because of aversion to having to pay a % fee of your paycheque, partly because it's arguably "taking open source proprietary". But if proper open-source is unsustainable, professional associations may yet be better than the alternatives of governments deciding which open source gets funding, or complete commercialisation of open source software.

by AJRF 4y ago

zelphirkalt 4y ago

> What a tricky problem to solve at scale because of the tragedy of the commons (As in; "I'm sure someone - not me - will be a sponsor for this project") It is only tricky, if we make it tricky. Basically if one can afford it and really values something, then one should support it. That way all the people, who cannot currently afford to support it, can continue benefitting from it. As a second and much later thought only, one can still look at how much support a project is getting and whether anyone can live on that, maintaining the project. Often we should ask ourselves: "What if everyone acts like I plan to act?" (basically Kant's version of the golden rule) -- That way it becomes clear, that the project would die, because if everyone thinks "Surely someone else will support it." then obviously no one will support it. I think there has at least been some shift towards supporting great creators in recent years, but there is still a long wait to go until we: > [...] live in a world where more stuff is free to use for all, but sponsored by the "market", so the amount of effect is maximised, while the economics are maintainable to keeping the impact open to all.

AJRF 4y ago
Well you've just sort of described the aforementioned tragedy of the commons again here, the trickiness is inherent and emergent in human nature, and that is _why_ it is tricky. "That which is common to the greatest number gets the least amount of care. Men pay most attention to what is their own: they care less for what is common."
- asymmetric 4y ago
  Btw this argument (that the TotC is a consequence of human nature) has been debunked several times (see the wikipedia article for a few). Hardin sets up a very specific scenario, and draws conclusions about human nature from it. This is a fallacy.

FishInTheWater 4y ago

> What a tricky problem to solve at scale because of the tragedy of the commons (As in; "I'm sure someone - not me - will be a sponsor for this project") We have solutions for tragedies of the commons like this: Professional Associations, Unions, and Guilds. They have the ability to raise funds through their membership fees, and can then spend that money on the common good. Membership can be 'encouraged' by requiring payment for commercial use if the company/it's employees aren't part of the association. This solution is just not very popular, partly because of aversion to having to pay a % fee of your paycheque, partly because it's arguably "taking open source proprietary". But if proper open-source is unsustainable, professional associations may yet be better than the alternatives of governments deciding which open source gets funding, or complete commercialisation of open source software.