6 ms·

Hmm, think we ought to judge on a case by case basis. However, for megacorp and especially banks that has almost 0 to 1% access to cost of capital, vs rest of u

Hmm, think we ought to judge on a case by case basis. However, for megacorp and especially banks that has almost 0 to 1% access to cost of capital, vs rest of us who at at 20 - 30 % ( for credit card, loan sharks), then there should be a different license for these people. There should be a GLP type license adjusted to the cost of the capital.

keepamovin 1y ago
Why, if they are paying their employees and aim to earn from their enterprise, should so disrespect your time and IP as to attempt to not pay you? Tho pricing tailored to customers works, as long as it's efficient and non-zero.
chii 1y ago
There should not be any difference between small or large entitise in how you deal with them as an opensource maintainer. Just because someone has more money (or less), should not automatically mean you treat them with more leniency or ethics. You set up your standard, and stick to it whomever comes.
- formerly_proven 1y ago
  > You set up your standard, and stick to it whomever comes. Why? Most businesses don't entertain standard rates, either. It's case-by-case negotiations ("call us", "request quote"). Why should I, as a private person putting stuff out there for free, set up "my standard" and stick to it?
  - keepamovin 1y ago
    Because otherwise it's not a value, it's a whim. But I guess they don't mean set the same price for everyone - but rather stick to your values in what you do.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- keepamovin 1y ago
  This is The Way
- vasco 1y ago
  Interacting with faceless entities with the power to buy multiple countries the same way you'd interact with some interested independent young person wanting to learn. Interesting moral proposition, I doubt you'd get many followers. I think it's perfectly reasonable to treat people differently from corporations, and random small and medium corporations differently than huge megacorps without losing any sleep. Specially in business, charging more to those that can pay more is a very common approach.
  - chii 1y ago
    > charging more to those that can pay more is a very common approach. and all consumers dislike price discrimination. Airlines is the classic example. It's just that those companies do this because they can. And i hate it. I much prefer a static, single price for a product.
    - homebrewer 1y ago
      No, it's also because some consumers can't pay the "original" price. Steam in "developing" countries is a classic example — you as a game developer can ask a guy from my country $60 for a game (and some companies do try that), but he will simply go back to torrent trackers because $60 is a week's worth of living expenses. gaben figured that out and successfully expanded into many markets that were considered basket cases for software licensing.
  - jimbokun 1y ago
    > Interesting moral proposition, I doubt you'd get many followers. But the US Supreme Court would be one of them.
- polotics 1y ago
  Clearly you have yet to experience some of the less savoury behaviours from Megacorps sharks. You're looking at people trying to make a name for themselves internally and if this means being economical with attributions, this is the least they would do for their place in the California sun.
- LtWorf 1y ago
  So you're equally like to give your change to a poor beggar and to a guy begging from inside his rolls royce?
  - chii 1y ago
    If i ahead of time decided to give my next dollar to the next guy begging, why not?
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      That's a really silly precommitment. If you were sensible, your actual commitment should be "help the next person who requires help, provided that help can be provided in the form of one dollar".
      - chii 1y ago
        That's why the premise in the grandparent post is ridiculous. But the license of a piece of software is not ridiculous - if you chose a very permissive license, you cannot then go and choose who should or shouldnt be profiting off your software. The license was a pre-commitment. But lots of people make this pre-commitment, but then makes a moral/ethical judgement post-facto when someone rich seems to be able to extract more value out of the software than what "they deserve", and complain about it.
        wizzwizz4 1y ago
        "Permissive" licenses, in fields where abusive corporations are known to operate, are a really silly precommitment. Copyleft exists for a reason. But, even if you (foolishly) made that precommitment, that doesn't then mean you have to do free labour for the abusive corporations, out of some misguided ideological consistency. (Such consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.)
        taormina 1y ago
        I mean, the MIT license might be a “more permissive” license but it says very explicit things that Microsoft is explicitly ignoring. Your license choice doesn’t matter when they ignore the license anyway.
- latexr 1y ago
  Companies are never just money. There is a monumental difference between: 1. A small company which is barely profitable but is building something which aligns with your values and you see as a positive to the world. 2. A massive mega corporation whose only purpose is profit, mistreats employees, and you view as highly unethical. You shouldn’t treat those the same way. It’s perfectly ethical to offer your work for free to the first one (helping them succeed in creating a better world) and charging up the wazoo (or better yet, refusing to engage in any way with) the second one.
  - b112 1y ago
    There is no such difference. A company is not a person, and can literally have its entire staff changed in short order. Or be bought. Companies have no morals. Sometimes people in companies do, but again, that person can vanish instantly. You should treat a company as a person which may receive a brain transplant at any time. Most especially, when writing contracts or having any expectation of what that company will do.
    - thfuran 1y ago
      A sole proprietorship pretty much is a person.
      - mindcrime 1y ago
        Or a single member LLC.
    - Spooky23 1y ago
      The key is contract. Casual chat with a corporate representative who isn’t selling you something about something you own requires some sort of contractual relationship and consideration.
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      This is an exceptionally ignorant viewpoint. A business that is privately owned, is run by its founders and which represents the lion's share of its officers income and net worth can be dealt with like any other small business. Some guy who makes bespoke firmware for industrial microcontrollers or very niche audio encoding software isn't Microsoft. You won't be able to do business with him in a useful way if you treat him like Microsoft.
- PeeMcGee 1y ago
  > You set up your standard, and stick to it whomever comes. Well, the standard for software licensing is to sell cheaper licenses to smaller businesses and more expensive licenses to larger businesses.

keepamovin 1y ago

Why, if they are paying their employees and aim to earn from their enterprise, should so disrespect your time and IP as to attempt to not pay you? Tho pricing tailored to customers works, as long as it's efficient and non-zero.

chii 1y ago

There should not be any difference between small or large entitise in how you deal with them as an opensource maintainer. Just because someone has more money (or less), should not automatically mean you treat them with more leniency or ethics. You set up your standard, and stick to it whomever comes.

formerly_proven 1y ago
> You set up your standard, and stick to it whomever comes. Why? Most businesses don't entertain standard rates, either. It's case-by-case negotiations ("call us", "request quote"). Why should I, as a private person putting stuff out there for free, set up "my standard" and stick to it?
- keepamovin 1y ago
  Because otherwise it's not a value, it's a whim. But I guess they don't mean set the same price for everyone - but rather stick to your values in what you do.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
keepamovin 1y ago
This is The Way
vasco 1y ago
Interacting with faceless entities with the power to buy multiple countries the same way you'd interact with some interested independent young person wanting to learn. Interesting moral proposition, I doubt you'd get many followers. I think it's perfectly reasonable to treat people differently from corporations, and random small and medium corporations differently than huge megacorps without losing any sleep. Specially in business, charging more to those that can pay more is a very common approach.
- chii 1y ago
  > charging more to those that can pay more is a very common approach. and all consumers dislike price discrimination. Airlines is the classic example. It's just that those companies do this because they can. And i hate it. I much prefer a static, single price for a product.
  - homebrewer 1y ago
    No, it's also because some consumers can't pay the "original" price. Steam in "developing" countries is a classic example — you as a game developer can ask a guy from my country $60 for a game (and some companies do try that), but he will simply go back to torrent trackers because $60 is a week's worth of living expenses. gaben figured that out and successfully expanded into many markets that were considered basket cases for software licensing.
- jimbokun 1y ago
  > Interesting moral proposition, I doubt you'd get many followers. But the US Supreme Court would be one of them.
polotics 1y ago
Clearly you have yet to experience some of the less savoury behaviours from Megacorps sharks. You're looking at people trying to make a name for themselves internally and if this means being economical with attributions, this is the least they would do for their place in the California sun.
LtWorf 1y ago
So you're equally like to give your change to a poor beggar and to a guy begging from inside his rolls royce?
- chii 1y ago
  If i ahead of time decided to give my next dollar to the next guy begging, why not?
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    That's a really silly precommitment. If you were sensible, your actual commitment should be "help the next person who requires help, provided that help can be provided in the form of one dollar".
    - chii 1y ago
      That's why the premise in the grandparent post is ridiculous. But the license of a piece of software is not ridiculous - if you chose a very permissive license, you cannot then go and choose who should or shouldnt be profiting off your software. The license was a pre-commitment. But lots of people make this pre-commitment, but then makes a moral/ethical judgement post-facto when someone rich seems to be able to extract more value out of the software than what "they deserve", and complain about it.
      - wizzwizz4 1y ago
        "Permissive" licenses, in fields where abusive corporations are known to operate, are a really silly precommitment. Copyleft exists for a reason. But, even if you (foolishly) made that precommitment, that doesn't then mean you have to do free labour for the abusive corporations, out of some misguided ideological consistency. (Such consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.)
      - taormina 1y ago
        I mean, the MIT license might be a “more permissive” license but it says very explicit things that Microsoft is explicitly ignoring. Your license choice doesn’t matter when they ignore the license anyway.
latexr 1y ago
Companies are never just money. There is a monumental difference between: 1. A small company which is barely profitable but is building something which aligns with your values and you see as a positive to the world. 2. A massive mega corporation whose only purpose is profit, mistreats employees, and you view as highly unethical. You shouldn’t treat those the same way. It’s perfectly ethical to offer your work for free to the first one (helping them succeed in creating a better world) and charging up the wazoo (or better yet, refusing to engage in any way with) the second one.
- b112 1y ago
  There is no such difference. A company is not a person, and can literally have its entire staff changed in short order. Or be bought. Companies have no morals. Sometimes people in companies do, but again, that person can vanish instantly. You should treat a company as a person which may receive a brain transplant at any time. Most especially, when writing contracts or having any expectation of what that company will do.
  - thfuran 1y ago
    A sole proprietorship pretty much is a person.
    - mindcrime 1y ago
      Or a single member LLC.
  - Spooky23 1y ago
    The key is contract. Casual chat with a corporate representative who isn’t selling you something about something you own requires some sort of contractual relationship and consideration.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    This is an exceptionally ignorant viewpoint. A business that is privately owned, is run by its founders and which represents the lion's share of its officers income and net worth can be dealt with like any other small business. Some guy who makes bespoke firmware for industrial microcontrollers or very niche audio encoding software isn't Microsoft. You won't be able to do business with him in a useful way if you treat him like Microsoft.
PeeMcGee 1y ago
> You set up your standard, and stick to it whomever comes. Well, the standard for software licensing is to sell cheaper licenses to smaller businesses and more expensive licenses to larger businesses.