3 ms·

When is a gift not a gift? If your not willing to have the other person shame you for your gift then you shouldn't be giving gifts. Gifts are given because you

When is a gift not a gift? If your not willing to have the other person shame you for your gift then you shouldn't be giving gifts. Gifts are given because you enjoy the act of giving not how the gift is perceived by another person, if that rubs you the wrong way you shouldn't be giving, it's as simple as that.

netdevnet 2y ago
> If your not willing to have the other person shame you for your gift then you shouldn't be giving gifts. Not sure where you were raised but in the western world, shaming the gift giver is extremely rude and will definitely cost you your social reputation. The gift giver is considered to be right in being upset at being shamed
jakewins 2y ago
> If your not willing to have the other person shame you for your gift then you shouldn't be giving gifts That is antithetical to how I was raised to react to gifts; you never shame someone that gives you a gift you didn’t like unless it’s something completely egregious.
- hackit2 2y ago
  When you give a gift, you give a gift unconditionally, it is no longer a gift when there is a underlying expectation on the receiver. It is also a issue about perspective, just because you may consider something to be a "gift" it could be perceived as something else. For example, it could be considered as a form of manipulation by a third party, or a unwanted expectation to owe another person. It can be corrupting.
  - alias_neo 2y ago
    I don't think the gift analogy really works here. When you "give" open-source software, by placing it online, it's more analogous to placing a piece of furniture on your door-step with a sign that says "help yourself". If you come along and take it, you've laid the expectation on yourself. Should you knock on my door and say, "I want this piece of furniture you're giving away, but I want you to deliver it and set it up in my home, since I have no means", I might decide to do so, but that's entirely out of the goodness of my heart, or I might tell you to fuck off, and that's entirely reasonable too. If you decide to come along and use my open-source library (for example), you did your due-dil and set the expectation on yourself if it appears unsustainable and you decide to take it anyway.
    - hackit2 2y ago
      I think if you look at my gift analogy it maps perfectly to your analogy. I wouldn't be surprised if I gifted code then someone contacted me and wanted to sue me or charge me for using it. That is the nature of a gift, you have no control over other people, if you have a problem with that don't give a gift, it's as simple as that.
      - alias_neo 2y ago
        > I wouldn't be surprised if I gifted code then someone contacted me and wanted to sue me or charge me for using it. That is the nature of a gift, you have no control over other people, if you have a problem with that don't give a gift, it's as simple as that I agree with you on the relative conditions of gift-giving and receiving, to an extent, but I completely disagree, with OSS being considered gift-giving. If I put some code online, like putting something on my doorstep, it's "without warranty", it's not a gift, it's there on the off-chance it's of use to someone; only they can make that determination, if they decide they want it, but don't have the means; can't get it home, can't maintain the code, anything they request beyond that point is "charity". I might feel charitable and take the furniture to their home, or provide some maintenance on the code, but my act of placing it there for anybody and nobody entitles them to nothing from me, they don't like it, they don't take it. I placed no burden on them by putting it there, and that's the difference with gift-giving and this; If I gift you a £1M house, and put the deeds in your name for you, I'm placing a burden on you, you didn't ask for that as the "giftee", I've potentially caused you harm even by "gifting" that to you, I can see you having some entitlement there. OSS is not the same, if I post it online, you take it or leave it, if you take it, you're not entitled to my help/time/effort, it wasn't a gift, you placed the burden on yourself. If an individual wants some help, I may choose to offer it, if a company wants my help with it, I may choose to, or choose not to, I owe them nothing. Of course much of this comes down to our own opinions on what putting our OSS code online is, if you consider yours to be a gift, that's fine, I don't (consider mine to be), we can agree to disagree.
        hackit2 2y ago
        Well, when you're explicitly bundling your own terms and conditions you're no longer gift giving you're in-fact entering into a explicit transactional exchange abet you also need to factor in copyright laws of said material. Which also depends on the Sovereign country copyright laws, and also your ability to enforce your copyright or ownership. I agree with your proposition that it is not considered gift-giving. How-ever that also doesn't excuse the author from explicitly stating it in the terms in the code of the said works that they publish online, how-ever most common-wealth countries do have inherent statutory copyright laws rights that protect the creator of said works.
continuational 2y ago
Do you really feel justified in shaming someone who gives you a gift?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
beej71 2y ago
Flaming bags of dog poo are also delivered while enjoying the act of giving. Anticipating the recipient's positive response is part what makes something a gift. But you're right in a practical sense in that if you're not willing to take some punches for the work you did and gave away for free, you probably shouldn't do that on the internet.
- hackit2 2y ago
  It applies to life in general not just to the internet.

netdevnet 2y ago

> If your not willing to have the other person shame you for your gift then you shouldn't be giving gifts. Not sure where you were raised but in the western world, shaming the gift giver is extremely rude and will definitely cost you your social reputation. The gift giver is considered to be right in being upset at being shamed

jakewins 2y ago

> If your not willing to have the other person shame you for your gift then you shouldn't be giving gifts That is antithetical to how I was raised to react to gifts; you never shame someone that gives you a gift you didn’t like unless it’s something completely egregious.

hackit2 2y ago
When you give a gift, you give a gift unconditionally, it is no longer a gift when there is a underlying expectation on the receiver. It is also a issue about perspective, just because you may consider something to be a "gift" it could be perceived as something else. For example, it could be considered as a form of manipulation by a third party, or a unwanted expectation to owe another person. It can be corrupting.
- alias_neo 2y ago
  I don't think the gift analogy really works here. When you "give" open-source software, by placing it online, it's more analogous to placing a piece of furniture on your door-step with a sign that says "help yourself". If you come along and take it, you've laid the expectation on yourself. Should you knock on my door and say, "I want this piece of furniture you're giving away, but I want you to deliver it and set it up in my home, since I have no means", I might decide to do so, but that's entirely out of the goodness of my heart, or I might tell you to fuck off, and that's entirely reasonable too. If you decide to come along and use my open-source library (for example), you did your due-dil and set the expectation on yourself if it appears unsustainable and you decide to take it anyway.
  - hackit2 2y ago
    I think if you look at my gift analogy it maps perfectly to your analogy. I wouldn't be surprised if I gifted code then someone contacted me and wanted to sue me or charge me for using it. That is the nature of a gift, you have no control over other people, if you have a problem with that don't give a gift, it's as simple as that.
    - alias_neo 2y ago
      > I wouldn't be surprised if I gifted code then someone contacted me and wanted to sue me or charge me for using it. That is the nature of a gift, you have no control over other people, if you have a problem with that don't give a gift, it's as simple as that I agree with you on the relative conditions of gift-giving and receiving, to an extent, but I completely disagree, with OSS being considered gift-giving. If I put some code online, like putting something on my doorstep, it's "without warranty", it's not a gift, it's there on the off-chance it's of use to someone; only they can make that determination, if they decide they want it, but don't have the means; can't get it home, can't maintain the code, anything they request beyond that point is "charity". I might feel charitable and take the furniture to their home, or provide some maintenance on the code, but my act of placing it there for anybody and nobody entitles them to nothing from me, they don't like it, they don't take it. I placed no burden on them by putting it there, and that's the difference with gift-giving and this; If I gift you a £1M house, and put the deeds in your name for you, I'm placing a burden on you, you didn't ask for that as the "giftee", I've potentially caused you harm even by "gifting" that to you, I can see you having some entitlement there. OSS is not the same, if I post it online, you take it or leave it, if you take it, you're not entitled to my help/time/effort, it wasn't a gift, you placed the burden on yourself. If an individual wants some help, I may choose to offer it, if a company wants my help with it, I may choose to, or choose not to, I owe them nothing. Of course much of this comes down to our own opinions on what putting our OSS code online is, if you consider yours to be a gift, that's fine, I don't (consider mine to be), we can agree to disagree.
      - hackit2 2y ago
        Well, when you're explicitly bundling your own terms and conditions you're no longer gift giving you're in-fact entering into a explicit transactional exchange abet you also need to factor in copyright laws of said material. Which also depends on the Sovereign country copyright laws, and also your ability to enforce your copyright or ownership. I agree with your proposition that it is not considered gift-giving. How-ever that also doesn't excuse the author from explicitly stating it in the terms in the code of the said works that they publish online, how-ever most common-wealth countries do have inherent statutory copyright laws rights that protect the creator of said works.

continuational 2y ago

Do you really feel justified in shaming someone who gives you a gift?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

beej71 2y ago

Flaming bags of dog poo are also delivered while enjoying the act of giving. Anticipating the recipient's positive response is part what makes something a gift. But you're right in a practical sense in that if you're not willing to take some punches for the work you did and gave away for free, you probably shouldn't do that on the internet.

hackit2 2y ago
It applies to life in general not just to the internet.