4 ms·

your insistence that people doing what they want on their own time and then disposing of the product as they see fit is "slave labor" undermines your otherwise

your insistence that people doing what they want on their own time and then disposing of the product as they see fit is "slave labor" undermines your otherwise valid point.

stego-tech 1y ago
Your deliberate misconstruing of my argument to support a point I wasn’t remotely making undermines your entire comment. Expected or required labor that is not compensated is, well, slavery. Labor that is freely given without expectation of compensation or reward is volunteerism. Trying to guilt open source projects into addressing security, regulatory, or feature concerns under some sort “digital supply chain” label without compensating them for their time or labor is a form of entitlement on the part of companies who could easily pay for the resources they consume or contribute the fixes themselves, but choose not to. Demanding said labor without compensation, with or without threat of consequences, is to demand the other party willfully submit to a form of enslavement or servitude. I’m specifically talking about “digital supply chain” labels and logistics being applied to Open Source projects without their consent or compensation. You don’t get to magic up some excuse to not call the demand for free labor without compensation as anything other than what it actually is.
- reverendsteveii 1y ago
  when is labor required of FOSS? I always assumed that I was perfectly free to not write FOSS but I'd be interested to find out in what manner I can be compelled to do so. Keep in mind that asking, even asking forcefully or impolitely, is not compulsion. Compulsion is about what happens if the request is not fulfilled.
  - x0x0 1y ago
    The EU certainly proposed something not far off. And it took the python foundation threatening to block all users from the EU to partially shelve it. The compulsion: jump through EU paperwork hoops, perform security work, and fix bugs on demand or face ruinous fines. https://pyfound.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-eus-proposed-cra-law-may-have.html https://pyfound.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-eus-proposed-cra-la... Even now, the CRA is very vague -- any commercial activity tenuously related to a piece of software you share can force you to do work for the EU. Of at least try, if you don't tell the EU to shove it. And that commercial activity doesn't even need to be in the EU.
    - reverendsteveii 1y ago
      Had they followed through with that, it would be compulsion and the comparison to slavery would have been warranted. And the devs did exactly what I would have and what they should do, which is to withdraw any software they're not willing to support. To my mind this process is exactly what the OP was talking about: devs offer software for free with no support because that's what they're willing to do for free, someone demands more free labor from them under the guise of accountability, devs say "I'm not willing to do that and if that makes distributing this software illegal that's fine, we'll pull it down", lawmakers back down and move on to gazing in the mouths of other gift horses.
- bee_rider 1y ago
  Expected labor that is not compensated is not slavery. It could is rude to expect people to do labor for us for free, but there’s no compulsion behind it. Required labor that is not compensated flirts with slavery. Part of the danger of a software supply chain law is that, as a law, it can compel behavior. So, it is runs the risk of bumping stuff from the “expected” to “required” bucket. > Demanding said labor without compensation, with or without threat of consequences, is to demand the other party willfully submit to a form of enslavement or servitude. A demand without a threat of consequences is just a request. It could be a very rude request. But that’s all it is. Conflating rude requests with compelled actions cheapens the impact of the latter, and obscures what is wrong about the former.

your insistence that people doing what they want on their own time and then disposing of the product as they see fit is "slave labor" undermines your otherwise valid point.

stego-tech 1y ago

Your deliberate misconstruing of my argument to support a point I wasn’t remotely making undermines your entire comment. Expected or required labor that is not compensated is, well, slavery. Labor that is freely given without expectation of compensation or reward is volunteerism. Trying to guilt open source projects into addressing security, regulatory, or feature concerns under some sort “digital supply chain” label without compensating them for their time or labor is a form of entitlement on the part of companies who could easily pay for the resources they consume or contribute the fixes themselves, but choose not to. Demanding said labor without compensation, with or without threat of consequences, is to demand the other party willfully submit to a form of enslavement or servitude. I’m specifically talking about “digital supply chain” labels and logistics being applied to Open Source projects without their consent or compensation. You don’t get to magic up some excuse to not call the demand for free labor without compensation as anything other than what it actually is.

reverendsteveii 1y ago
when is labor required of FOSS? I always assumed that I was perfectly free to not write FOSS but I'd be interested to find out in what manner I can be compelled to do so. Keep in mind that asking, even asking forcefully or impolitely, is not compulsion. Compulsion is about what happens if the request is not fulfilled.
- x0x0 1y ago
  The EU certainly proposed something not far off. And it took the python foundation threatening to block all users from the EU to partially shelve it. The compulsion: jump through EU paperwork hoops, perform security work, and fix bugs on demand or face ruinous fines. https://pyfound.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-eus-proposed-cra-law-may-have.html https://pyfound.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-eus-proposed-cra-la... Even now, the CRA is very vague -- any commercial activity tenuously related to a piece of software you share can force you to do work for the EU. Of at least try, if you don't tell the EU to shove it. And that commercial activity doesn't even need to be in the EU.
  - reverendsteveii 1y ago
    Had they followed through with that, it would be compulsion and the comparison to slavery would have been warranted. And the devs did exactly what I would have and what they should do, which is to withdraw any software they're not willing to support. To my mind this process is exactly what the OP was talking about: devs offer software for free with no support because that's what they're willing to do for free, someone demands more free labor from them under the guise of accountability, devs say "I'm not willing to do that and if that makes distributing this software illegal that's fine, we'll pull it down", lawmakers back down and move on to gazing in the mouths of other gift horses.
bee_rider 1y ago
Expected labor that is not compensated is not slavery. It could is rude to expect people to do labor for us for free, but there’s no compulsion behind it. Required labor that is not compensated flirts with slavery. Part of the danger of a software supply chain law is that, as a law, it can compel behavior. So, it is runs the risk of bumping stuff from the “expected” to “required” bucket. > Demanding said labor without compensation, with or without threat of consequences, is to demand the other party willfully submit to a form of enslavement or servitude. A demand without a threat of consequences is just a request. It could be a very rude request. But that’s all it is. Conflating rude requests with compelled actions cheapens the impact of the latter, and obscures what is wrong about the former.