3 ms·

> Correct. If you're trying to get the marketing advantage and let other people give you free work, then you get to play fair and other people also benefit. Tha

> Correct. If you're trying to get the marketing advantage and let other people give you free work, then you get to play fair and other people also benefit. That's what those words mean. This free work everyone talks about is not free. They need to maintain it, they need to review it, they need to baby-step new contributors, etc. That costs money. Not to mention, most aren't doing it to get free work. They're giving stuff away and folk are crying because they can't use someone else's work as free work. Look at any major open source product and you'll see nearly all the commits are done by paid employees. Open source is built on free work is a lie. Open Source is largely paid for.

thedevilslawyer 2y ago
Very similarly, the access to the community and marketing benefits of open source are not free. The community give these projects their consideration and valuable time, in exchange for the freedoms they get. Projects can obviously choose not do this. It's a 2-way street on value and time.
- that_guy_iain 2y ago
  > The community give these projects their consideration and valuable time, in exchange for the freedoms they get. Projects can obviously choose not do this. No, the community does it to get to use the software for free. That's enough. The right to make a competing company that just uses the software is not in the minds of most community members. I'm convinced the other people who care about this freedom don't contribute to anything.
  - thedevilslawyer 2y ago
    > That's enough It's opt-in. No one forces a project to pick open source. They don't get to decide what's enough. You clearly want open source to mean something other that what it by default means. A better place to put your efforts would be like folks over at fair.io, perhaps. It's not faring well IMO, but it's an honest take in the "no competing company" direction.

thedevilslawyer 2y ago

Very similarly, the access to the community and marketing benefits of open source are not free. The community give these projects their consideration and valuable time, in exchange for the freedoms they get. Projects can obviously choose not do this. It's a 2-way street on value and time.

that_guy_iain 2y ago
> The community give these projects their consideration and valuable time, in exchange for the freedoms they get. Projects can obviously choose not do this. No, the community does it to get to use the software for free. That's enough. The right to make a competing company that just uses the software is not in the minds of most community members. I'm convinced the other people who care about this freedom don't contribute to anything.
- thedevilslawyer 2y ago
  > That's enough It's opt-in. No one forces a project to pick open source. They don't get to decide what's enough. You clearly want open source to mean something other that what it by default means. A better place to put your efforts would be like folks over at fair.io, perhaps. It's not faring well IMO, but it's an honest take in the "no competing company" direction.