3 ms·
Typical garbage argument based on the notion that open source developers are only doing it for the chance of employment. If you think this way, please stay far
by kortilla 3y ago
Typical garbage argument based on the notion that open source developers are only doing it for the chance of employment. If you think this way, please stay far away from open source and even further from trying to regulate it.
Companies exploit open source no differently than the way they exploit math, science, and engineering research they didn’t pay for.
You know who else does this? Individuals, governments, academic institutions, non-profits, etc. It’s the entire damn point.
If you don’t want to use open source, don’t. But fuck off if you’re trying to ban people from using it without “paying their fair share”.
- BoiledCabbage 3y ago> Typical garbage argument based on the notion that open source developers are only doing it for the chance of employment. There is nothing in the article that supports you making this statement. It's not clear to be that you understood the arguments the author was making. The core of the argument is this: > But, in light of the recent xz Utils / SSH backdoor scandal, it is clear that while the bargain may not be entirely one-sided, it is not symmetrical, and significant bad consequences may result, both for the maintainers themselves and for society. Specifically the potential impact to society via scenarios similar to the above. The link from the article covers it well: https://boehs.org/node/everything-i-know-about-the-xz-backdoor https://boehs.org/node/everything-i-know-about-the-xz-backdo...
- 082349872349872 3y agomath, science, and engineering research is state supported As to not paying a fair share: I, for one, would be perfectly happy if the open source world retreated back into geekiness; needing to RTFM constitutes a proof-of-work, a non-monetary cost that I'd guess many potential exploiters would not be willing to pay.