7 ms·
nah, people can do whatever they want with it :)
by binji 3y ago
nah, people can do whatever they want with it :)
- splatzone 3y agoMcDonalds makes ~$23 billion per year. You deserve something.
- Aeolun 3y agoWhen they decided to release it how they did they decided that compensation was secondary. Maybe just the fact that their software is now used by millions of people is cool enough?
- quickthrower2 3y ago... Recalls Simpon's episode where Bill Gates says "I didn't get rich handing out checks"
- ssnistfajen 3y agoPlease read the licensing terms in their GitHub repo first before making a comment.
- makapuf 3y agoI have the right to stand up in front of a music performer, invite friends to come over and listen to the great show, receive expensive gifts from my friends for their great evening and then give nothing to the street performer. Its my right !
- dumpsterdiver 3y agoI mean... yeah. In the meantime you haven't taken anything from that person; they are performing on a public street. On the contrary, similar to a packed restaurant, your presence might signal to others that there is something worth experiencing where you and your friends are crowded. This could in turn benefit the person you're crowded around by bringing more wallets within earshot. So you haven't actually given nothing, you've given your attention, and you've advertised for that person as if you were wearing a giant chicken suit spinning a sign and shouting, "Hey everyone, check out this person! Their music is good enough to attract a crowd!" The fact that your friends in this scenario would weirdly shower you with expensive gifts after inviting them to watch a street musician perform doesn't negate the free advertising you've provided.
- throwaway290 3y agoYes, the performer would benefit from that attention. Maybe some of the people your presence brings around will tip them, etc. The difference is that the existence of the performer is super obvious while in this case author and their work is hidden so author will not benefit in the same way.
- Talanes 3y agoThe author is also hidden from anyone who would be authorizing payment. The only person involved who might know the author is the guy making the game, and they likely used what leverage they had on their own contract.
- throwaway290 3y agobased on what I know about other engineers it's almost certain that no one used any leverage whatsoever and the only reason they even checked the license is because legal forced them
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dumpsterdiver 3y ago> The difference is Sure, that does differentiate the two scenarios. I was responding specifically to the first scenario. I have an arguably bad habit of responding only to specific points that people make in their arguments, while ignoring the rest of their argument until they address the unresolved point. In this case, someone tried to make a point about standing around street performers. I had something to say about it.
- throwaway290 3y agoI see, I took it as objection to the bigger point, because many probably do the same if you want to avoid misunderstanding you can keep doing what you're doing just with a clarification that you have no strong opinion on the issue
- ssnistfajen 3y agoNot sure what analogy you are trying for here but that ain't it. Publishing an open source project is not the same as street performance.
- gchamonlive 3y agoWhat you can do isn't necessarily the same as what you should do. McDonald's missed an opportunity to make this even cooler by compensating the developer. A couple thousand dollars in the right place can be more effective than millions in marketing. It just shows the company cares.
- oh_sigh 3y agoWho else should get random bonuses? How about the hundreds of open source contributors to web browsers? What about the children of the people who clean the offices of the studio that made the game? I bet I could identify about a million people who deserve a bonus here.
- throwaway290 3y agoMaybe it's both OK to say things like this to promote the megabusiness... >Just be sure to order some McDonald’s to support them. Who knows… if we keep eating McDonald’s, they might keep producing these oddball retro gaming related projects. >I, for one, will NEVER stop eating McDonald’s. You have my word. ...and it's also OK to wonder if that megabusiness could've paid or otherwise credited the small guy. Not that it's obligated to.
- gchamonlive 3y agoIt's not a random bonus though. It makes sense in the context of the promotion. In any case, that is far off the point of my comment, which is explicit in the very first sentence. You tried flipping my argument but destroyed the context in the process.
- yellowapple 3y ago...yes? They all arguably deserve something. Hell, we're long overdue for a universal basic income - such that everyone can pursue things for the sake of coolness or intellectual curiosity or whatever if they want to, without needing to worry about making ends meet.
- ekianjo 3y ago
- Andrex 3y agoMorally, maybe. Legally, no.
- oh_sigh 3y agoThey are getting exactly what they asked for.
- thrdbndndn 3y agoI personally don't think we should expect more from a "richer" user as soon as they're following the license of OSS (or expect anything different at all, regardless users' background or purpose). It just doesn't make sense, not even morally.
- mickael-kerjean 3y agoWhere do you put the bar of the legal vs morale argument? A few days ago, I discovered a government entity in Pakistan was using my AGPL software [1] to handle censoring of media through their "ministry of information and broadcasting". I did release my software under AGPL as I like the underlying ideology of free software with a large emphasis on the freedom and not the free of charge but would have never expect some regime would come to use it to handle censoring. [1]: https://github.com/mickael-kerjean/filestash https://github.com/mickael-kerjean/filestash
- thrdbndndn 3y agoI personally think your particular scenario is the easier one: such "client" will ignore any license requirement or "moral pressure" anyway, as soon as they can acquire the software in some way. There shouldn't be moral burden on the devs. You do more good (way more) than harm. Otherwise I doubt Linus can sleep at night. I'd say this is no difference from, say, a knife manufacturer when it comes to the harm the knives do. Commercial use is something devs are more torn because they feel they're being exploited while the client is not doing anything wrong inherently (doing business). And in that case, you have to adjust your expectation to be exactly the same as the license you put in to resolve such cognitive dissonance.
- vocatus_gate 3y ago"the harm the knives do" Ah yes, those famous knives that jump up and attack people, when they're not too tired from autonomously cutting steaks and chopping vegetables.
- 3y ago
- mynonameaccount 3y agoThey developer isn't complaining, why are you? Maybe you can create something, opensource it MIT, and then complain.
- kortilla 3y agoYou’re thinking of revenue. Where is your outrage over the government using open source given its revenue? You’re missing the point of open source if you think it’s quid pro quo.
- _piif 3y agoNot everyone does everything with the expectation of seeing their bank account inflated in return. Sometimes people work on things just for the gist of it and I always appreciate seeing something driven solely by legitimate enthusism. :)
- throw10920 3y agoThe amount of money that McDonalds makes is completely irrelevant to how much the developer "deserves". Especially given that they released their product as open-source and explicitly sought no payment.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoRepresent
- decko 3y agoYou are in the credits though!