3 ms·

> We are witnessing the greatest theft of intellectual property in the history of Man. Issue is that this has been going on for decades. We've been really bad

> We are witnessing the greatest theft of intellectual property in the history of Man. Issue is that this has been going on for decades. We've been really bad at allocating capital to people who are building important and highly influential software. These big companies do play a role, but it is a shame that a small portion of these profits does not go back to the people who did work that is cornerstone to their success. I often wonder what the world would look like if being an open source developer was actually profitable. But we definitely know what the world looks like when being a open source developer essentially means having two full time jobs and getting paid for one. I think the problem is people see it as "charity" and see charity work as less valuable. I remember Steve Levitt talking about a conversation he had with Bill Gates over this. I think it was in the PIMA episode where they discuss CEO pay for charities and how their pay is far less than that of a corporation, even if the work is the same.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> We've been really bad at allocating capital to people who are building important and highly influential software What does this mean? Can you give an example?
- realo 2y ago
  Well... there you go! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XZ_Utils_backdoor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XZ_Utils_backdoor
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    Sorry - I might be being a bit slow. How is that an example of poor capital allocation?
    - godelski 2y ago
      - XZ is critical software - XZ was (is?) developed by a single person - XZ developer does XZ development in their spare time, having a normal job to pay the bills - XZ developer gets overburdened. Not making money, they can't hire another dev. - Pressure builds up. Hacker leverages and takes advantage of this. Especially since everything can't be checked due to said overburden Look at it from the flip side. Take the counterfactual of if XZ Utils was making money for their work - XZ is critical software, therefore it is funded - XZ is funded and critical, so more than one developer is hired to ensure quality - XZ is funded, developers don't have a second job. They have ONE job - XZ is over burdened. XZ is funded. XZ hires more devs. It's true that a hacker can still infiltrate corporate software, but it is also true that the pressures would have been far lower were the main dev not doing 2 fucking jobs.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        Of course if there were a large company maintaining XZ Utils then that would dramatically mitigate the cyber risk, but isn't this is the default economics of OSS? Approaching it from the point of view of "it's obviously unjust and stupid that people voluntarily offered their software for nothing" without questioning the prior seems a bit short-sighted. If you want to say "no one should use OSS because of the cyber risk", you might be right. But then what should replace it? What's the proposal?
        gryfft 2y ago
        Not every valid recognition of a real problem has to come with a 13-page point-by-point proposal for a fix.
- whoiscroberts 2y ago
  I took it to mean that we give money to people who ask for it

robertlagrant 2y ago

> We've been really bad at allocating capital to people who are building important and highly influential software What does this mean? Can you give an example?

realo 2y ago
Well... there you go! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XZ_Utils_backdoor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XZ_Utils_backdoor
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  Sorry - I might be being a bit slow. How is that an example of poor capital allocation?
  - godelski 2y ago
    - XZ is critical software - XZ was (is?) developed by a single person - XZ developer does XZ development in their spare time, having a normal job to pay the bills - XZ developer gets overburdened. Not making money, they can't hire another dev. - Pressure builds up. Hacker leverages and takes advantage of this. Especially since everything can't be checked due to said overburden Look at it from the flip side. Take the counterfactual of if XZ Utils was making money for their work - XZ is critical software, therefore it is funded - XZ is funded and critical, so more than one developer is hired to ensure quality - XZ is funded, developers don't have a second job. They have ONE job - XZ is over burdened. XZ is funded. XZ hires more devs. It's true that a hacker can still infiltrate corporate software, but it is also true that the pressures would have been far lower were the main dev not doing 2 fucking jobs.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      Of course if there were a large company maintaining XZ Utils then that would dramatically mitigate the cyber risk, but isn't this is the default economics of OSS? Approaching it from the point of view of "it's obviously unjust and stupid that people voluntarily offered their software for nothing" without questioning the prior seems a bit short-sighted. If you want to say "no one should use OSS because of the cyber risk", you might be right. But then what should replace it? What's the proposal?
      - gryfft 2y ago
        Not every valid recognition of a real problem has to come with a 13-page point-by-point proposal for a fix.
whoiscroberts 2y ago
I took it to mean that we give money to people who ask for it