4 ms·

They are not talking about OpenBSD's expectations, it's about the ethics (!) of the companies using things on the back of the generosity without giving back.

zx8080 2y ago
Ethics does not belong to capitalism. Money is the central part of it, not ethics.
- all2 2y ago
  Any system of economics may be abused. A moral people could operate communism successfully. Unfortunately, most people are not even remotely moral. Pragmatically moral (in plain view, but not behind closed doors), for sure, but innately good -- definitely not.
- mmooss 2y ago
  That's the excuse, but society only works if people behave ethically and not entirely in their self-interest. I don't see why that doesn't apply to people working in businesses, and it never has: Businesses have always contributed to their communities in many ways.
kweingar 2y ago
I see this mindset more and more, and to me it seems against the ethos of open-source software. There's something philosophically odd about saying "you are free to use, change, redistribute, or sell this with basically no restrictions" while simultaneously maintaining that users incur unstated ethical debts by accepting. It could even be seen as a kind of bait-and-switch. Contributions and reciprocity are praiseworthy of course, and we should all aspire to this. But that doesn't mean someone is ethically wrong for choosing to accept a gift freely given without giving one in return.
- 0dayz 2y ago
  If you've never maintained a project you don't know just how unthankful and demanding it is. Because of the endless amount of expectations.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- fc417fc802 2y ago
  You are legally free to use. Your ethical obligations will depend on your particular worldview, and are likely to vary substantially by culture. All cultures I'm familiar with recognize that someone who is well off taking advantage of a tragedy of the commons is unethical. The particulars vary by locale but my impression is that it is universal that the degree of condemnation increases the wealthier the person exploiting the system is.
  - kweingar 2y ago
    The thing about the tragedy of the commons is that you are actively hurting everyone else by depleting a non-rivalrous good. When I accept a friend's hospitality and don't reciprocate, I am taking their time and resources. When I take five free samples at the store, I ruin it for others who come later. When I download an open source GitHub repo, I am burning 1¢ of Microsoft's money.
    - fc417fc802 2y ago
      I'm not sure I see the point in distinguishing between something beneficial being reduced in value actively versus passively. Whether it's individuals taking negative action or individuals failing to take positive action, the end result is the same at the end of the day. Something beneficial is reduced in value by collective greedy (in)action. The world at large is made worse for it over time. Perhaps my definition is off? If so I would appreciate a pointer about the correct terminology. I suppose it might be different in the case of a one-time fork. It still seems like there's an ethical obligation to contribute back if you are well off and you benefit from something. I think there's a meta, societal level tragedy of the commons to be found there. But if you aren't actively benefiting from maintenance efforts then perhaps it doesn't qualify as a direct tragedy of the commons.
    - MrJohz 2y ago
      The cost of software is not the cost of distribution, it's the cost of maintenance, support, and implementation. When you clone a repo, this has little impact by itself, but the work to create that repository in the first place, to maintain it and ensure it is free of bugs, and to provide documentation and support so that people understand how to use it - that all has a cost. If nobody pays for that cost, then the work will never get done in the first place, and we won't have these resources.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  > But that doesn't mean someone is ethically wrong for choosing to accept a gift freely given without giving one in return Many cultures do in fact work that way. And while modern American culture views the idea of taking everything you can and only giving back what you are contractually forced to in a more positive light, the term freeloader still has negative connotations.
  - kweingar 2y ago
    If you're a maintainer and reciprocity is an important value to you, and you think that people who don't give back are freeloading, then why did you specifically choose not to use a GPL license for your project? Your point about the gap between the words of a license and an ethical expectation is well taken. But why put that gap there at all? It's going out of your way to make sure that people have the choice to screw you.
  - grandempire 2y ago
    > American culture views the idea of taking everything you can and only giving back what you are contractually forced to in a more positive light That’s not a thing in American culture. Maybe you are referring the low trust culture of international commerce, which just happens to be centered in the US.
- hulitu 2y ago
  > There's something philosophically odd about saying "you are free to use, change, redistribute, or sell this with basically no restrictions" while simultaneously maintaining that users incur unstated ethical debts by accepting Not users, companies that make bilions. We call that shameless.
jjmarr 2y ago
Use GPLv3 or AGPL then. If you want companies to "give back" when they use your code, put it in the licence. Or you can charge money for your product.
- bentley 2y ago
  I don’t think OpenBSD is clamoring for code contributions from the companies with proprietary SSH forks. Just money to support continued development. > Use GPLv3 or AGPL then. If you want companies to "give back" when they use your code, put it in the licence. Seems like a poor choice given that projects like MongoDB try out AGPL for this reason and then later switch to nonfree licenses like SSPL. OpenBSD is not interested in that—whether its attempts to raise funds through goodwill work out or not, OpenBSD will always be free software.
toenail 2y ago
People choose BSD licenses precisely because they don't want to impose any ethics on anybody.
DeathArrow 2y ago
>it's about the ethics (!) of the companies A company doesn't have ethics. It's sole purpose is to make a profit.
- rswail 2y ago
  This is incorrect. Companies form for numerous different reasons, including a group of people needing a legal structure for investments, or to protect against liability, or for particular ventures. One of the primary outcomes that people want from corporate structures is profit, but that is not the structure's "sole purpose", either in law or practise. Corporate structures can't have ethics because they are not people (legal constructions of "person" vs "natural person" notwithstanding).
- elcritch 2y ago
  Nope, a companies purpose is to fulfill it's charter. Profit is generally a goal of for profit companies, but they usually have others too. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
- nickpsecurity 2y ago
  Capitalism is usually maximization of selfish gain. A business in any form maximizes the objective of its owners, often financial gain. However, they can be designed to or run for altruistic purposes or a mix of altruism and selfishness. Here's two types of companies not soley about the money: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2017/04/25/what-makes-hobby-lobby-a-christian-company-hint-its-not-a-greed-or-a-misogyny-thing/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2017/04/25/what-mak... https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/public-benefit-corporation-vs-b-corp-whats-the-difference https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/public-benefit-c...
karparov 2y ago
If you make it about ethics, it's not going to work. Your C-suite folks wont be on board. You need to make it about utility. Open sourcing some package or contributions to an existing package is giving you returns far beyond your investment. A community will help maintaining, improving, growing your code. Perhaps even competitors will chip in. (If they don't, well, their loss..) It's going to be a net positive.
surajrmal 2y ago
How many restaurants serve food and ask for donations from patrons instead of charge them specific amounts? People are not generous, large companies made of lots of people, none of which feel specifically responsible for the companies actions are also going to accordingly not be. If they need money, the expectations should be set accordingly. Maybe spruce should be open but features and bug reports must have accompanying bounties set by the individuals reporting them otherwise the maintainer will ignore them.

zx8080 2y ago

Ethics does not belong to capitalism. Money is the central part of it, not ethics.

all2 2y ago
Any system of economics may be abused. A moral people could operate communism successfully. Unfortunately, most people are not even remotely moral. Pragmatically moral (in plain view, but not behind closed doors), for sure, but innately good -- definitely not.
mmooss 2y ago
That's the excuse, but society only works if people behave ethically and not entirely in their self-interest. I don't see why that doesn't apply to people working in businesses, and it never has: Businesses have always contributed to their communities in many ways.

kweingar 2y ago

I see this mindset more and more, and to me it seems against the ethos of open-source software. There's something philosophically odd about saying "you are free to use, change, redistribute, or sell this with basically no restrictions" while simultaneously maintaining that users incur unstated ethical debts by accepting. It could even be seen as a kind of bait-and-switch. Contributions and reciprocity are praiseworthy of course, and we should all aspire to this. But that doesn't mean someone is ethically wrong for choosing to accept a gift freely given without giving one in return.

0dayz 2y ago
If you've never maintained a project you don't know just how unthankful and demanding it is. Because of the endless amount of expectations.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
fc417fc802 2y ago
You are legally free to use. Your ethical obligations will depend on your particular worldview, and are likely to vary substantially by culture. All cultures I'm familiar with recognize that someone who is well off taking advantage of a tragedy of the commons is unethical. The particulars vary by locale but my impression is that it is universal that the degree of condemnation increases the wealthier the person exploiting the system is.
- kweingar 2y ago
  The thing about the tragedy of the commons is that you are actively hurting everyone else by depleting a non-rivalrous good. When I accept a friend's hospitality and don't reciprocate, I am taking their time and resources. When I take five free samples at the store, I ruin it for others who come later. When I download an open source GitHub repo, I am burning 1¢ of Microsoft's money.
  - fc417fc802 2y ago
    I'm not sure I see the point in distinguishing between something beneficial being reduced in value actively versus passively. Whether it's individuals taking negative action or individuals failing to take positive action, the end result is the same at the end of the day. Something beneficial is reduced in value by collective greedy (in)action. The world at large is made worse for it over time. Perhaps my definition is off? If so I would appreciate a pointer about the correct terminology. I suppose it might be different in the case of a one-time fork. It still seems like there's an ethical obligation to contribute back if you are well off and you benefit from something. I think there's a meta, societal level tragedy of the commons to be found there. But if you aren't actively benefiting from maintenance efforts then perhaps it doesn't qualify as a direct tragedy of the commons.
  - MrJohz 2y ago
    The cost of software is not the cost of distribution, it's the cost of maintenance, support, and implementation. When you clone a repo, this has little impact by itself, but the work to create that repository in the first place, to maintain it and ensure it is free of bugs, and to provide documentation and support so that people understand how to use it - that all has a cost. If nobody pays for that cost, then the work will never get done in the first place, and we won't have these resources.
wongarsu 2y ago
> But that doesn't mean someone is ethically wrong for choosing to accept a gift freely given without giving one in return Many cultures do in fact work that way. And while modern American culture views the idea of taking everything you can and only giving back what you are contractually forced to in a more positive light, the term freeloader still has negative connotations.
- kweingar 2y ago
  If you're a maintainer and reciprocity is an important value to you, and you think that people who don't give back are freeloading, then why did you specifically choose not to use a GPL license for your project? Your point about the gap between the words of a license and an ethical expectation is well taken. But why put that gap there at all? It's going out of your way to make sure that people have the choice to screw you.
- grandempire 2y ago
  > American culture views the idea of taking everything you can and only giving back what you are contractually forced to in a more positive light That’s not a thing in American culture. Maybe you are referring the low trust culture of international commerce, which just happens to be centered in the US.
hulitu 2y ago
> There's something philosophically odd about saying "you are free to use, change, redistribute, or sell this with basically no restrictions" while simultaneously maintaining that users incur unstated ethical debts by accepting Not users, companies that make bilions. We call that shameless.

jjmarr 2y ago

Use GPLv3 or AGPL then. If you want companies to "give back" when they use your code, put it in the licence. Or you can charge money for your product.

bentley 2y ago
I don’t think OpenBSD is clamoring for code contributions from the companies with proprietary SSH forks. Just money to support continued development. > Use GPLv3 or AGPL then. If you want companies to "give back" when they use your code, put it in the licence. Seems like a poor choice given that projects like MongoDB try out AGPL for this reason and then later switch to nonfree licenses like SSPL. OpenBSD is not interested in that—whether its attempts to raise funds through goodwill work out or not, OpenBSD will always be free software.

toenail 2y ago

People choose BSD licenses precisely because they don't want to impose any ethics on anybody.

DeathArrow 2y ago

>it's about the ethics (!) of the companies A company doesn't have ethics. It's sole purpose is to make a profit.

rswail 2y ago
This is incorrect. Companies form for numerous different reasons, including a group of people needing a legal structure for investments, or to protect against liability, or for particular ventures. One of the primary outcomes that people want from corporate structures is profit, but that is not the structure's "sole purpose", either in law or practise. Corporate structures can't have ethics because they are not people (legal constructions of "person" vs "natural person" notwithstanding).
elcritch 2y ago
Nope, a companies purpose is to fulfill it's charter. Profit is generally a goal of for profit companies, but they usually have others too. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
nickpsecurity 2y ago
Capitalism is usually maximization of selfish gain. A business in any form maximizes the objective of its owners, often financial gain. However, they can be designed to or run for altruistic purposes or a mix of altruism and selfishness. Here's two types of companies not soley about the money: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2017/04/25/what-makes-hobby-lobby-a-christian-company-hint-its-not-a-greed-or-a-misogyny-thing/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2017/04/25/what-mak... https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/public-benefit-corporation-vs-b-corp-whats-the-difference https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/public-benefit-c...

karparov 2y ago

If you make it about ethics, it's not going to work. Your C-suite folks wont be on board. You need to make it about utility. Open sourcing some package or contributions to an existing package is giving you returns far beyond your investment. A community will help maintaining, improving, growing your code. Perhaps even competitors will chip in. (If they don't, well, their loss..) It's going to be a net positive.

surajrmal 2y ago

How many restaurants serve food and ask for donations from patrons instead of charge them specific amounts? People are not generous, large companies made of lots of people, none of which feel specifically responsible for the companies actions are also going to accordingly not be. If they need money, the expectations should be set accordingly. Maybe spruce should be open but features and bug reports must have accompanying bounties set by the individuals reporting them otherwise the maintainer will ignore them.