4 ms·
But he's not doing the work for free. He's doing something else for free which they use. He has domain knowledge with the library that noone else has, their can
by that_guy_iain 1y ago
But he's not doing the work for free. He's doing something else for free which they use. He has domain knowledge with the library that noone else has, their can either pay someone to learn it or they can hire someone with it.
- ArcHound 1y agoAnd that's exactly what these companies can abuse. If this wasn't available for free, they would gladly pay for a programmer to create it. But if it's already free, they can use it as a starting point. Maybe they'd need to internalize/extend it. But the option of paying for the work already done is gone. Do this for each npm dependency and you're looking at huge savings.
- imtringued 1y agoThis is still illogical. You can hire the original maintainer and pay an incremental cost, or you can hire a random developer and pay the initial learning cost + higher incremental cost. If every company using a library chose the former, then every hour of development would be paid for (from the perspective of the maintainer) and the cost would be spread out across all its users.
- ArcHound 1y agoA counterproposal: You can use what is as is. Then you can ignore all of the other issues if they don't impact your bottom line. Don't get me wrong, I like your corporate OSS financing model. But there seems to be not enough incentive for companies to use it. Why take ownership for a small cost, when you can use an imperfect thing with no cost?