4 ms·

My point is simple: if someone contributes, they accept the terms. Complaining about ‘free labor’ is irrelevant. The contributor chose to contribute; if they di

by 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.

by ezekg 2y ago

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.