4 ms·
> Not all of them know the better or have the gravitas to tell "go fix yourself", and this allows exploitation to continue. Agreed there, but then this is what
by jefftk 1y ago
> Not all of them know the better or have the gravitas to tell "go fix yourself", and this allows exploitation to continue.
Agreed there, but then this is what I think we should be arguing for. Not "companies are wrong to use software without paying" but "companies are wrong to demand work from (and especially to make threats to) volunteers" and "volunteer maintainers should be well supported by the community (and anticipate such) when they decline to extend software".
- bayindirh 1y ago> Agreed there, but then this is what I think we should be arguing for. I mean, the original comment (by me) you replied to is intended to portray a scenario where the company threatens the developer for not fixing a bug which affects the company in short notice, for free. Or, did I word it wrong?
- jefftk 1y agoPossibly I read more into your comment than you were trying to say, but I interpreted you as saying "and so we should shame companies for not paying" as opposed to "and so we should shame companies for threatening"?
- bayindirh 1y agoYou dove a little deeper than I intended. In short: - Companies use Free or Open Source Software: That's great. - Companies give feedback (bug reports, RFCs, developer time etc.) to said projects: That's awesome. - Companies wait for the developer and have no hard feelings when their requests are done for free, or rejected because it doesn't fit developer's vision: That's the way it should be. - Companies pressure/threaten developer for features, timeline, requests and expect the developer to do as they say for free: Hell no!. If they see eye to eye and let the developer be, it can be done for free. If they try to treat said developer as their employer who works for internet cookie points, now we have a problem.