4 ms·

It is interesting how otherwise smart, talented people rationalise the donation of their labour to an entitled majority who have no idea about or interest in th

It is interesting how otherwise smart, talented people rationalise the donation of their labour to an entitled majority who have no idea about or interest in the person or motivation behind the work. Who cares right? Just keep the free shit coming.

diggan 2y ago
> talented people rationalise the donation of their labour Second comment now stating this or something similar. I don't understand where the connection of "My projects are MIT" <> "Donation of labor" comes from, is it my own labor that is being donated to myself? The public? Something is missing in these arguments y'all are making.
- meiraleal 2y ago
  Setting up repos, implementing a good git workflow and managing a community are some but not all free work a free software developer needs to do besides making the code public.
  - diggan 2y ago
    > managing a community No, this is not something that in inherent in "free software", and you don't have to do that for any of your projects unless you want to. And that doesn't make the software any less FOSS.
    - sabbaticaldev 2y ago
      > And that doesn't make the software any less FOSS. Yes it does. It makes for an useless unreachable repository without even a README that nobody knows about. That's not open source/free software. Developing free software successfully means managing all the things around distributing, documentation and community management and it is that what makes people sour as the benefit of it goes to big corps and startup pockets. Putting your code into www.mywebsitenobodyknows.com isn't open source/free software
      - diggan 2y ago
        No, I'm not sure why some believe anything of those things are required to call software FOSS. FOSS means the code is licensed under a FOSS-compatible license, nothing more, nothing less. I'm not sure who is trying to change this definition, or why, but that's what it meant from the beginning, and it's also the understanding of the majority of people I'm interacting with. You might want to do yourself a favor and read through some of the FOSS licenses you come across in the wild, none of them contain anything that you wrote about. Edit: I made something just for you, this is FOSS with no extra bells and whistles, and the only thing you need: Code + License https://mywebsitenobodyknows.com/ https://mywebsitenobodyknows.com/
      - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
        Yes it is. if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, but anyone who finds it can use it, it's an open source tree
  - BeetleB 2y ago
    > are some but not all free work a free software developer needs to do besides making the code public. Nope. They don't need to do any of those things.
- shprd 2y ago
  > I don't understand where the connection of "My projects are MIT" <> "Donation of labor" comes from When people open source their code they usually think people like them would benefit from it and appreciate it. Like I made this project, I might as well share it. But in many popular projects, you have a sole maintainer struggling to keep a roof over their head, while issues from companies (disguised as individual employees) requesting features and reporting bugs pile up, taking advantage of their labor and keeping them busy till they burn out. The main issue is the majority of companies often don't contribute back, they just consume, they're a burden leeching off free labor.
  - diggan 2y ago
    > taking advantage of their labor and keeping them busy till they burn out. But how is that the companies fault that people are unable to say no? At one point, individuals need to be strong enough to say "No, I can't help you with that" just like if someone asked you for money on the street and you don't have enough yourself. Is it the beggars fault that you're unable to ration your own money? > The main issue is the majority of companies often don't contribute back, they just consume, they're a burden leeching off free labor. The companies aren't "consuming" anything just as much as digital piracy isn't "stealing". The code is there, they can use it if they want. If something doesn't fit their use case, they can change it themselves, or ask someone else. Then it's up to that "someone" to say yes or no.
    - shprd 2y ago
      > But how is that the companies fault that people are unable to say no? Are we seriously blaming the victims now that they're not strong enough to stand up for themselves? Do you go to people who got bullied or fallen for a scam and tell them you could have said no at any moment, it's their fault completely? The offender just asked nicely for your credit card information, they did nothing wrong, you just had to say no. Sorry, they played a fair game, you lost. > The companies aren't "consuming" What? what do you call companies who only come to a project to ask for features requests and then take that feature and disappear? > The code is there, they can use it if they want. But.. no one is complaining that they simply used some open source code that was published online. Why do you make up ridiculous arguments by yourself and then proceed to mock them? I'd understand if you misinterpreted my point but are you really oblivious to the struggles of open source maintainers? Or you're just downplaying it or something else? What's going on here? Yes, they could have said no. They could have not released the code to begin with. But that doesn't change that they were taken advantage of.

diggan 2y ago

> talented people rationalise the donation of their labour Second comment now stating this or something similar. I don't understand where the connection of "My projects are MIT" <> "Donation of labor" comes from, is it my own labor that is being donated to myself? The public? Something is missing in these arguments y'all are making.

meiraleal 2y ago
Setting up repos, implementing a good git workflow and managing a community are some but not all free work a free software developer needs to do besides making the code public.
- diggan 2y ago
  > managing a community No, this is not something that in inherent in "free software", and you don't have to do that for any of your projects unless you want to. And that doesn't make the software any less FOSS.
  - sabbaticaldev 2y ago
    > And that doesn't make the software any less FOSS. Yes it does. It makes for an useless unreachable repository without even a README that nobody knows about. That's not open source/free software. Developing free software successfully means managing all the things around distributing, documentation and community management and it is that what makes people sour as the benefit of it goes to big corps and startup pockets. Putting your code into www.mywebsitenobodyknows.com isn't open source/free software
    - diggan 2y ago
      No, I'm not sure why some believe anything of those things are required to call software FOSS. FOSS means the code is licensed under a FOSS-compatible license, nothing more, nothing less. I'm not sure who is trying to change this definition, or why, but that's what it meant from the beginning, and it's also the understanding of the majority of people I'm interacting with. You might want to do yourself a favor and read through some of the FOSS licenses you come across in the wild, none of them contain anything that you wrote about. Edit: I made something just for you, this is FOSS with no extra bells and whistles, and the only thing you need: Code + License https://mywebsitenobodyknows.com/ https://mywebsitenobodyknows.com/
    - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
      Yes it is. if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, but anyone who finds it can use it, it's an open source tree
- BeetleB 2y ago
  > are some but not all free work a free software developer needs to do besides making the code public. Nope. They don't need to do any of those things.
shprd 2y ago
> I don't understand where the connection of "My projects are MIT" <> "Donation of labor" comes from When people open source their code they usually think people like them would benefit from it and appreciate it. Like I made this project, I might as well share it. But in many popular projects, you have a sole maintainer struggling to keep a roof over their head, while issues from companies (disguised as individual employees) requesting features and reporting bugs pile up, taking advantage of their labor and keeping them busy till they burn out. The main issue is the majority of companies often don't contribute back, they just consume, they're a burden leeching off free labor.
- diggan 2y ago
  > taking advantage of their labor and keeping them busy till they burn out. But how is that the companies fault that people are unable to say no? At one point, individuals need to be strong enough to say "No, I can't help you with that" just like if someone asked you for money on the street and you don't have enough yourself. Is it the beggars fault that you're unable to ration your own money? > The main issue is the majority of companies often don't contribute back, they just consume, they're a burden leeching off free labor. The companies aren't "consuming" anything just as much as digital piracy isn't "stealing". The code is there, they can use it if they want. If something doesn't fit their use case, they can change it themselves, or ask someone else. Then it's up to that "someone" to say yes or no.
  - shprd 2y ago
    > But how is that the companies fault that people are unable to say no? Are we seriously blaming the victims now that they're not strong enough to stand up for themselves? Do you go to people who got bullied or fallen for a scam and tell them you could have said no at any moment, it's their fault completely? The offender just asked nicely for your credit card information, they did nothing wrong, you just had to say no. Sorry, they played a fair game, you lost. > The companies aren't "consuming" What? what do you call companies who only come to a project to ask for features requests and then take that feature and disappear? > The code is there, they can use it if they want. But.. no one is complaining that they simply used some open source code that was published online. Why do you make up ridiculous arguments by yourself and then proceed to mock them? I'd understand if you misinterpreted my point but are you really oblivious to the struggles of open source maintainers? Or you're just downplaying it or something else? What's going on here? Yes, they could have said no. They could have not released the code to begin with. But that doesn't change that they were taken advantage of.