3 ms·

> Why do discussions about source-available models often turn into accusations of soliciting free labor? Simple. Because the company literally wrote this in t

> Why do discussions about source-available models often turn into accusations of soliciting free labor? Simple. Because the company literally wrote this in their press release[1] at the time they were releasing it. Direct quote “This is an invitation to global collaboration, where developers worldwide can contribute their expertise, ideas, and passion to help this iconic software evolve.” Further direct quote: “With this initiative to open the source code, Winamp is taking the next step in its history, allowing its users to contribute directly to improving the product.” They are literaly soliciting free labor. This is how the press release ends: “Interested developers can now make themselves known at the following address: about.winamp.com/free-llama” what is that if not a solicitation for free labour? > anybody who does contribute does so under their own free will, under the terms set forth by the license So wait. Just so I understand. Is your problem that you think they are falsely accused of soliciting free labour? Or that they are indeed fully were soliciting free labour but you would rather not want people harsh your vibes by discussing this? 1: https://www.llama-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-05-16-open-source-en.pdf https://www.llama-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-...

ezekg 2y ago
My point is simple: if someone contributes, they accept the terms. Complaining about ‘free labor’ is irrelevant. The contributor chose to contribute; if they didn’t agree with the terms, they wouldn’t have. Nobody is asking for an uninvolved third-party to police the collaboration. I'd also be careful attributing these actions to malice without further motive, when it very well could also be attributed to excitement i.r.t. sharing and collaborating on Winamp's source code in public, under a single-source.
- chii 2y ago
  > attributing these actions to malice without further motive these actions could be construed as malice, but i would definitely attribute them as greed. AKA, they want contributions, but want to prevent anyone else but themselves from being able to commercially exploit it.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > if someone contributes, they accept the terms That assumes that everyone has full information of course. Discussing the terms publicly is helping everyone reach that state. > Nobody is asking for an uninvolved third-party to police the collaboration. And someone is asking you to police what people are chatting about here? Doesn’t feel to be an entirely thought through argument. > I'd also be careful attributing these actions to malice without further motive I don’t actually care if they are “malicious” or “inept” or “ill informed” or anything else. In fact I think someone was excited about the open collaboration, and someone else at the company was worried about losing business opportunities and that is how we ended up with this situation. Maybe it was even the same person at different times. Maybe they heard about open source but never really understood the concept, and the motivations of people participating in it. Or maybe they are just as greedy as they appear to be. Who knows and who cares. What matters is that this is a rough deal and people should not play within their rules.

ezekg 2y ago

My point is simple: if someone contributes, they accept the terms. Complaining about ‘free labor’ is irrelevant. The contributor chose to contribute; if they didn’t agree with the terms, they wouldn’t have. Nobody is asking for an uninvolved third-party to police the collaboration. I'd also be careful attributing these actions to malice without further motive, when it very well could also be attributed to excitement i.r.t. sharing and collaborating on Winamp's source code in public, under a single-source.

chii 2y ago
> attributing these actions to malice without further motive these actions could be construed as malice, but i would definitely attribute them as greed. AKA, they want contributions, but want to prevent anyone else but themselves from being able to commercially exploit it.
krisoft 2y ago
> if someone contributes, they accept the terms That assumes that everyone has full information of course. Discussing the terms publicly is helping everyone reach that state. > Nobody is asking for an uninvolved third-party to police the collaboration. And someone is asking you to police what people are chatting about here? Doesn’t feel to be an entirely thought through argument. > I'd also be careful attributing these actions to malice without further motive I don’t actually care if they are “malicious” or “inept” or “ill informed” or anything else. In fact I think someone was excited about the open collaboration, and someone else at the company was worried about losing business opportunities and that is how we ended up with this situation. Maybe it was even the same person at different times. Maybe they heard about open source but never really understood the concept, and the motivations of people participating in it. Or maybe they are just as greedy as they appear to be. Who knows and who cares. What matters is that this is a rough deal and people should not play within their rules.