3 ms·
I can't see how you can shoulder the blame of (possible) failure of FOSS dream on developers. Devs (usually) don't control budgets and can't really ask for mone
by jarpineh 3y ago
I can't see how you can shoulder the blame of (possible) failure of FOSS dream on developers. Devs (usually) don't control budgets and can't really ask for money to pay for freely licensed code. If blame is to be given then I'd point to money handlers for not acknowledging this situation.
Then there's the question of what I should be paying anyway. Who among all those non-free developers are paying in turn to all the professionals whose code they build on? Are proprietary developers somehow exempt from paying themselves? If and when I choose to pay I like to think all that contributed are getting the benefit.
There's a long line of professionals behind every code that should have been paid. Certain percentage might have tried to get paid. And even some who in fact did get paid.
- pjmlp 3y agoEasy, there is no need to try to use every tool under the Sun. Do as we did before the GNU days, analyse what really matters for a specific project development, pay for those tools, and keep using them until they aren't suitable any longer.
- jarpineh 3y agoHa. I'm not sure your remark really responds to my concerns. I do use very small set from all the things. And do pay (small amount, I admit) money to some of them. If I choose to pay for a tool and the tool maker doesn't pay for their tools, then how much better off we are? I can't really see this next iteration of non-GNU ecosystem faring that much better if only few benefit. And for that matter, I did pay money for non-free tools. And bought Linux on those CDs distributors used to sell. Then the free-er ones somehow got better, so that revenue stream had nowhere to go. As I said, there's no easy way to pay for free stuff.