2 ms·

Open source is the very worst thing currently going on because it is so incredibly exploitative, it's far more exploitative than any actual company is of the wo

Open source is the very worst thing currently going on because it is so incredibly exploitative, it's far more exploitative than any actual company is of the workers who work at the company. Even the people who are getting paid in open source are getting massively underpaid to do it compared to how much the people who are using their code are making, it's nothing compared to the power that is accreted by the people who have co-opted that work thanks to the open source model. And then mark zuckerberg gets to define how the internet works despite having paid for almost none of the software that his company actually needed to make that work. It's like feudalism or serfdom, these people did the work and got nothing for it. It's like you took the worst aspects of capitalism for workers and the worst aspects of socialism for workers and put them together, that's open source. You get no power and you get no money. It's exploitative whether the people chose to be exploited, just because someone chooses to let you exploit them does not meant that you didn't exploit them. And for the record that's how most exploitation works; convincing people to do something that turns out to be very bad for them and very good for you, and that's exactly what the open source movement has turned out to be. I really don't see the "we post stuff on github under a gpl2 or lgpl or apache or mit license", all that is to me now is just exploitation. You can say that there's solutions but until someone demonstrates that those solutions work, it's the standard "real communism has never been tried" argument. AGPL is the only thing that I've seen so far that's an attempt to fix these fundamentally unfair compensation practices.

yesbut 3y ago
All software created by private companies should be created by worker owned enterprises so they aren't forced to hand over the lions share of profits to separate owners. Instead the employees are the owners. They decide how to use the profits collectively and democratically among themselves.
- bruce511 3y ago
  Nothing stops like-minded employees from banding together, and forming a collective. Indeed these exist. As you feel strongly about this, might I suggest you post an ad to find other like-minded individuals to align with and start said collective. (Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. Collectives exist and do well.) On the other hand you gloss over the role that owners play - perhaps because you've not been an owner? The obvious one of course being capital - developers like to be paid -while- creating, and not just "maybe later if it sells". What you call "profit", some owners might call "return on investment". If your collective is prepared to invest time, or money, then indeed they should share in the return (if there is one.) For better or worse, owners also have responsibilities. As much fun as collective decision making is, decisions do need to be made. What to build. When to hire. When to fire. Who to sell to. How to reach them. How much to spend reaching them. It takes a lot of right decisions to make a success, and only a couple of bad ones to sink the whole enterprise. But, and this is my point, there are lots of models to choose, and everyone should pick thd one that suits them best. Employer or employee or man-alone. Open Source or Commercial. Hierarchical business or collective. With software (unlike say, building roads) anything goes. Your future is the one you choose.
  - yesbut 3y ago
    Financing is a big barricade for creating a worker owned enterprise in the US. Some countries, like Italy, have programs for workers who are laid off. If ten workers that were laid off at the same time agree then the state will give them all of their unemployment wages in a lump sum to start a worker owned company together. Some countries will give workers the Right to First Refusal if their employer decides thatvthey want to close the place of employment or sale it. And the state will provide low interest loans to the workers so that they can buy the company. There are lots of solutions to the financing issue, but we need the states and federal government to be more supportive of the practical realities of non-wealthy workers starting worker owned enterprises and implement policies that create a level playing field. Banks in the US currently frown on this type of lending.
    - bruce511 3y ago
      >> Financing is a big barricade for creating a worker owned enterprise in the US. I'd argue that even allowing for the VC approach, financing is a big barricade for creating any business. >> Banks in the US currently frown on this type of lending. Given that 90% oc businesses will fail in the first 5 years, its not surprising that lending money to a new business is considered, well, risky. But both these points return us to the same starting point - which is the value of providing capital, and the value of taking risk. Since an investor has a choice, we attract these investors by making them "owners", with the promise of future profit. A government funded model, which provides "collective capital" for no equity sounds like a good plan, that can work well when applied to the right people. Unfortunately it's likely that 90% of the money will be spent for no permanent job return, and that seems like it will become an issue once it spans multiple election periods. Most successful small businesses are started with little capital, but a fair amount of time. I was fortunate that my wife's salary supported me in the years it took for mine to make money.
      - yesbut 3y ago
        We should have more public banks like North Dakota does and which are found in many countries. There is clearly a vested interest in the US by the power centers to keeping public banks from spreading.
throwawayqqq11 3y ago
You are correct when taken your value definitions of compensation and power, that FOSS is exploitative but i think you miss some important aspects here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33298158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33298158 This great article depicts some "loosers" as voluntary, that simply want to have a fulfilled life. FOSS is in itself a product of passion, no exploitive sociopath could ever bootstrap this. The free accessibility of software and knowledge is what enables the FOSS enthusiast and the profiteurs alike. Reducing FOSS to the latter is a valid perspective and your concerns are reasonalbe but even if there was no exploitation/corporate use of FOSS software, i assume, the maintainers would still do their unpaid thing. The expoitation comes second and is not inherent to FOSS. I wouldnt call it "worst thing on". Also, steven balmer disagrees with you :) Edit: Maybe some kind of GPL-like infectious form of enterprise could be a solution, where such a non-exploitive/worker owned company is bound to prefer business partners/suppliers that adhere to it too. Just a throw-in.
- rapnie 3y ago
  > i assume, the maintainers would still do their unpaid thing. That's a broad generalization. Sure, there are pure-passion maintainers doing voluntary work and can afford that by living on savings or alongside a paid job.
samatman 3y ago
Poor me, getting paid better than 99.9% of the world to provision public goods. Why, I'm benefiting people at the 99.9999% level in the process! Clearly this is the very worst thing currently going on, because it is so incredibly exploitative.
erik_seaberg 3y ago
Much of this is inherently interesting self-directed development work, and there already seems to be an ample supply of people who want to do it. If you’re looking for a market that would clear better by increasing compensation, look to gaps like documentation and live support and security patching that go ignored because they aren’t fun (for nerds).

yesbut 3y ago

All software created by private companies should be created by worker owned enterprises so they aren't forced to hand over the lions share of profits to separate owners. Instead the employees are the owners. They decide how to use the profits collectively and democratically among themselves.

bruce511 3y ago
Nothing stops like-minded employees from banding together, and forming a collective. Indeed these exist. As you feel strongly about this, might I suggest you post an ad to find other like-minded individuals to align with and start said collective. (Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. Collectives exist and do well.) On the other hand you gloss over the role that owners play - perhaps because you've not been an owner? The obvious one of course being capital - developers like to be paid -while- creating, and not just "maybe later if it sells". What you call "profit", some owners might call "return on investment". If your collective is prepared to invest time, or money, then indeed they should share in the return (if there is one.) For better or worse, owners also have responsibilities. As much fun as collective decision making is, decisions do need to be made. What to build. When to hire. When to fire. Who to sell to. How to reach them. How much to spend reaching them. It takes a lot of right decisions to make a success, and only a couple of bad ones to sink the whole enterprise. But, and this is my point, there are lots of models to choose, and everyone should pick thd one that suits them best. Employer or employee or man-alone. Open Source or Commercial. Hierarchical business or collective. With software (unlike say, building roads) anything goes. Your future is the one you choose.
- yesbut 3y ago
  Financing is a big barricade for creating a worker owned enterprise in the US. Some countries, like Italy, have programs for workers who are laid off. If ten workers that were laid off at the same time agree then the state will give them all of their unemployment wages in a lump sum to start a worker owned company together. Some countries will give workers the Right to First Refusal if their employer decides thatvthey want to close the place of employment or sale it. And the state will provide low interest loans to the workers so that they can buy the company. There are lots of solutions to the financing issue, but we need the states and federal government to be more supportive of the practical realities of non-wealthy workers starting worker owned enterprises and implement policies that create a level playing field. Banks in the US currently frown on this type of lending.
  - bruce511 3y ago
    >> Financing is a big barricade for creating a worker owned enterprise in the US. I'd argue that even allowing for the VC approach, financing is a big barricade for creating any business. >> Banks in the US currently frown on this type of lending. Given that 90% oc businesses will fail in the first 5 years, its not surprising that lending money to a new business is considered, well, risky. But both these points return us to the same starting point - which is the value of providing capital, and the value of taking risk. Since an investor has a choice, we attract these investors by making them "owners", with the promise of future profit. A government funded model, which provides "collective capital" for no equity sounds like a good plan, that can work well when applied to the right people. Unfortunately it's likely that 90% of the money will be spent for no permanent job return, and that seems like it will become an issue once it spans multiple election periods. Most successful small businesses are started with little capital, but a fair amount of time. I was fortunate that my wife's salary supported me in the years it took for mine to make money.
    - yesbut 3y ago
      We should have more public banks like North Dakota does and which are found in many countries. There is clearly a vested interest in the US by the power centers to keeping public banks from spreading.

throwawayqqq11 3y ago

You are correct when taken your value definitions of compensation and power, that FOSS is exploitative but i think you miss some important aspects here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33298158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33298158 This great article depicts some "loosers" as voluntary, that simply want to have a fulfilled life. FOSS is in itself a product of passion, no exploitive sociopath could ever bootstrap this. The free accessibility of software and knowledge is what enables the FOSS enthusiast and the profiteurs alike. Reducing FOSS to the latter is a valid perspective and your concerns are reasonalbe but even if there was no exploitation/corporate use of FOSS software, i assume, the maintainers would still do their unpaid thing. The expoitation comes second and is not inherent to FOSS. I wouldnt call it "worst thing on". Also, steven balmer disagrees with you :) Edit: Maybe some kind of GPL-like infectious form of enterprise could be a solution, where such a non-exploitive/worker owned company is bound to prefer business partners/suppliers that adhere to it too. Just a throw-in.

rapnie 3y ago
> i assume, the maintainers would still do their unpaid thing. That's a broad generalization. Sure, there are pure-passion maintainers doing voluntary work and can afford that by living on savings or alongside a paid job.

samatman 3y ago

Poor me, getting paid better than 99.9% of the world to provision public goods. Why, I'm benefiting people at the 99.9999% level in the process! Clearly this is the very worst thing currently going on, because it is so incredibly exploitative.

erik_seaberg 3y ago

Much of this is inherently interesting self-directed development work, and there already seems to be an ample supply of people who want to do it. If you’re looking for a market that would clear better by increasing compensation, look to gaps like documentation and live support and security patching that go ignored because they aren’t fun (for nerds).