3 ms·

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

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.
  - jraph 2y ago
    > When I download an open source GitHub repo, I am burning 1¢ of Microsoft's money. While the other examples seem good for illustrating the point, this one has it backwards I think. Microsoft worked very hard to be in this position. They did this on purpose and this aspect is essential to their success: - GitHub did everything they could to capture the market by being free to use and by leveraging the network effect - Microsoft bought GitHub at a point where it was already widely successful in this aspect, so they fully knew what they were buying Capturing the whole open source market is part of their business model. I don't like they've done this and I don't get to choose where authors host their code. Even the authors themselves might not have felt free to choose something else because of the network effect. It's only fair Microsoft pays for the privilege. GitHub being free is a feature for Microsoft. > When I accept a friend's hospitality and don't reciprocate I came to realize that you don't need to return the favor specifically to the person who helped you. Things work as long as you help anybody. The loop will be closed by someone who will eventually help the person who helped you (or has in the past). Actually, it doesn't events need to be a loop. This is very powerful and quite relaxing because you can be chill both for helping and for receiving help, and it has the potential of working very well and be very enjoyable. In short: take (from anybody) as long as yougive (to anybody) (Of course, in a friendship, some reciprocity is necessary, if things only go one way, it doesn't work)
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.

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.
- jraph 2y ago
  > When I download an open source GitHub repo, I am burning 1¢ of Microsoft's money. While the other examples seem good for illustrating the point, this one has it backwards I think. Microsoft worked very hard to be in this position. They did this on purpose and this aspect is essential to their success: - GitHub did everything they could to capture the market by being free to use and by leveraging the network effect - Microsoft bought GitHub at a point where it was already widely successful in this aspect, so they fully knew what they were buying Capturing the whole open source market is part of their business model. I don't like they've done this and I don't get to choose where authors host their code. Even the authors themselves might not have felt free to choose something else because of the network effect. It's only fair Microsoft pays for the privilege. GitHub being free is a feature for Microsoft. > When I accept a friend's hospitality and don't reciprocate I came to realize that you don't need to return the favor specifically to the person who helped you. Things work as long as you help anybody. The loop will be closed by someone who will eventually help the person who helped you (or has in the past). Actually, it doesn't events need to be a loop. This is very powerful and quite relaxing because you can be chill both for helping and for receiving help, and it has the potential of working very well and be very enjoyable. In short: take (from anybody) as long as yougive (to anybody) (Of course, in a friendship, some reciprocity is necessary, if things only go one way, it doesn't work)

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.