4 ms·

Not without reason: Stardew Valley, which has been sold to millions of gamers, has been created using the free MonoGame engine. So ConcernedApe is giving back

Not without reason: Stardew Valley, which has been sold to millions of gamers, has been created using the free MonoGame engine. So ConcernedApe is giving back to the open source software which made his commercial success possible, like commercial parties should.

sneak 10mo ago
Gifts do not confer obligation. Copying deprives the original party of nothing. Absolutely nothing about free software requires or even implies any responsibility to “give back”. This idea that anyone making money with free software somehow owes the original authors anything (or “should” donate a portion of their profits) is ridiculous. If the authors wanted money for their software, they would have sold it instead of giving it away for free as a gift. By releasing software under free software licenses you are explicitly stating that you do not expect or anticipate payment for it. The licenses (that they freely chose) are clear. Free software, in addition to being free as in speech, is also always free as in beer. My friend bought me lunch. I used that energy at my job. Do I owe them part of my paycheck?
- kwanbix 10mo ago
  It is the moral thing to do.
  - sneak 10mo ago
    I disagree. The moral thing to do would be to respect the stated wishes of the author of the software, who made clear when they published it that no payments of any kind are expected. If I gave you a gift and you tried to give me money, I would be offended. I’m not saying free software publishers wouldn’t accept donations - just that publishing free software is giving a gift to the world, and there is NO moral obligation placed on recipients. That’s the point of free software.
    - kwanbix 10mo ago
      What can I say. That you can not see it speaks volumes about your moral compas.
    - allyouseed 10mo ago
      How is this the bridge you're hiding under? You are simultaneously arguing for 'moral' subjectivity while utilizing the strawman of 'moral obligation'. Who would enforce this 'obliging' if the subject of morality is still up for debate? You are tying yourself in embarrassing knots over someone spreading their wealth, unsolicited, to people who helped them achieve it? Why? What's the end goal? Go argue with someone about the morality of environmental impacts of tech... or something...
- emseetech 10mo ago
  Copyleft removes legal obligation but we're free to confer a social obligation.
- wilde 10mo ago
  If your friend keeps taking you out to lunch and you never return the favor, he’s probably going to stop.
  - DrewADesign 10mo ago
    This guy would probably cancel, anyway, because his friend didn't want to pay him for driving them to the restaurant.
    - collingreen 10mo ago
      I'm giving the pleasure of being in my incredible presence why should I do that for free?
      - jaggederest 10mo ago
        I'm reminded of this story in the New Yorker: https://archive.ph/wNydh https://archive.ph/wNydh
        collingreen 9mo ago
        I laughed out loud, thank you for sharing this.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- poly2it 10mo ago
  This ignores the practical economics of open source. I'm not sure what you suggest by jumping around definitions like this.
- sanex 10mo ago
  You have a social obligation to buy your friend lunch sometime.
- bevr1337 10mo ago
  > Gifts do not confer obligation. Remind me, which Ferengi Rule of Acquisition is this? There's not much argument to be had. You've created a logical justification for a myopic, misanthropic world view. > My friend bought me lunch. I used that energy at my job. Do I owe them part of my paycheck? Many find reciprocation important in a relationship.
  - not_a_bot_4sho 10mo ago
    > Remind me, which Ferengi Rule of Acquisition is this? You made my morning with this quip.
  - Ygg2 10mo ago
    > Remind me, which Ferengi Rule of Acquisition is this? Never spend more for an acquisition than you have to. https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition
  - somenameforme 10mo ago
    How about #59: "Free advice is seldom cheap." Because you're basically saying that there's no such thing as free, and it's simply an 'unclarified financial contract to be consolidated at a later time.' Quark would approve! If I'm paying for a friend's lunch it's because I want to, not because I expect anything from him in the future. And beyond that, I do not consider downloading something somebody has released for free as establishing a relationship.
    - altairprime 10mo ago
      I prefer #68 here: “Compassion is no substitute for a profit.” The donation is compassionate; retaining it would be more profitable.
  - nu11ptr 10mo ago
    > You've created a logical justification for a myopic, misanthropic world view. Nobody said it wouldn't be nice, but that it does not confer "obligation". This is the key word. I would argue a world where people do things because they want to, and not because they feel they have to, would actually generally be a nicer world to live in. > Many find reciprocation important in a relationship. Yes, and those sorts of relationships aren't really built on much if a gift obligates the other to repay. Why even buy lunch then? It just becomes this back and forth obligation and it is wearing and actually erodes the relationship slightly, if anything. I would argue a true gift is one that does not obligate the other party to reciprocate. That does NOT mean it would not be a decent thing to do something nice (for the other person OR someone else), but just that it is not obligated. The person should not feel a weight to do so. Once this weight is lifted, it is actually very freeing, and it strengthens the relationship, if anything.
- rvnx 10mo ago
  It's nice to give back to people, no matter the amount. https://framerusercontent.com/images/9GsFxfDtmRFpfgGlNH61QsX3kY.png?width=1919&height=1079 https://framerusercontent.com/images/9GsFxfDtmRFpfgGlNH61QsX... He also needs that tool to stay alive for the future, even if not considering the past. It's a bit better position for everyone.
- Sajarin 10mo ago
  I think this comes off a bit too strong (as well as the replies to this to be fair) The example isn't quite accurate. If a friend bought you lunch, the social norm of reciprocity would incline you towards buying them lunch in the future (i.e part of your paycheck) Free open source software is a public good. While there is no obligation to give back, giving back helps that public good become more useful to other people (including your future self). I'm against making contribution an obligation, but I'm not against light social pressure upon philanthropists who have the means (which is what the parent comment was doing).
  - sneak 10mo ago
    In the lunch example, reciprocation would be releasing additional software under free software licenses, not payments. There should be zero social pressure, as gifts do not convey obligation. It was the software author’s explicit choice when licensing and publishing the software to make clear that payment is not expected.
    - tormeh 10mo ago
      Gifts do confer obligations. This is widely agreed upon in human society. If you ignore this there will be consequences, just no legal ones.
    - lovich 10mo ago
      Do you routinely struggle in social situations? Do you frequently have people tell you that you misinterpreted social cues? You are correct that no legal obligation was passed, but generally people feel that if you got something from a community that helped you succeed greatly you do have an obligation to throw something back to the organization to help it help others. If you don't, that'ss generally classified by people as being a jackass
- ralusek 10mo ago
  > Absolutely nothing about free software requires or even implies any responsibility to “give back” You're correct about that. The free software itself doesn't confer any responsibility. But the free software exists inside other contexts. Social/moral context. There're also future contexts for you or humanity. For example, if developing free software proves to be a sustainable model for people to do, you might get other projects LIKE the Blender Foundation to crop up in the future. You might benefit from them directly, or benefit from them by enjoying the things people produce with them. Also, if it's a tool that you like to use, maybe you just want that specific tool to continue to improve.
- qmmmur 10mo ago
  > My friend bought me lunch. I used that energy at my job. Do I owe them part of my paycheck? No but you owe him lunch next time. Wait till you find out that you have to share your birthday cake on your birthday.
- Kye 10mo ago
  What is this, the lawyer planet from Farscape? You shouldn't need a contract to be prosocial.
- drnick1 10mo ago
  There is no obligation, but since they find the project useful and are making money from it, they want to make sure it is not abandoned. The best way to ensure that is to fund its development. This also gives them direct access to the devs and can request new features or bug fixes that impact them to be prioritized. Everyone benefits. It's probably much cheaper to make a contribution than to do that in house and upstream the changes.
- hnbad 10mo ago
  Not under capitalism, sure. But traditionally gift economies worked exactly because people understood that gifts also imbue a burden of responsibility. Not necessarily in repayment but to honor the gift and pay the good deed forward instead of simply enriching yourself.
- MildlySerious 10mo ago
  There really is no prize for being technically correct on this one. Someone built this and is letting you have it. For free. There is no legal obligation or law of the universe here, sure, but if you're in the top 1% of benefactors of this pro bono work, you have the opportunity to do some good and make sure that others, like you, get the chance to benefit from this free work in the future. There is a pretty straightforward argument to be made that this falls under the "with great power comes great opportunity" umbrella of moral reasoning, since this work empowered CA to create the game that earned him a lot of money.
  - sneak 10mo ago
    There is no moral obligation, either - that’s my point. They chose to give it away for free. It’s the author’s explicit decision that there is no obligation placed on recipients. Giving a fake gift that comes with unspoken strings attached (and “keeping score” in your head) is the passive-aggressive, immoral act. If reciprocity is expected, it is definitionally not a gift. Releasing software under a free software license is a choice to give a gift to the world. If the author wanted moral obligation strings attached, the license would say that.
    - nothrabannosir 10mo ago
      The license only says what you MUST and MUST NOT do. The comment you’re replying to talked about what they SHOULD do. These are different concepts and they are codified differently by humans: the former in licenses, the latter socially. You’re experiencing that process right now.
      - oblio 10mo ago
        "You are being counseled at this very moment" :-))
      - andy99 10mo ago
        That’s certainly not a legal principle of any kind. It’s like the 17 pieces of flair thing, if they want you to have more, they should tell you, we don’t need some weird unspoken guidelines related to licenses, it’s why we have the license. If I get tremendous value out of MS office 365 but my agreement with MS charges me only $15/month, should I donate some extra to them because of how much it helps my business?
- TomatoCo 10mo ago
  What do you think about putting the shopping cart back in its corral?
  - knowitnone3 10mo ago
    If you do that, then you're taking jobs away.
- miiiiiike 10mo ago
  Upvoting because you’re correct. Commenting because you’re wrong. Donate to the F/OSS projects that you used to make it big.
- andy99 10mo ago
  I agree with this - I have often seen people get upset because someone used a project that was explicitly licensed to allow them to do whatever they wanted with it, with no obligation, in a way that they don’t like, or without doing something that’s apparently expected of them. This happened e.g. with whatever Amazon services wrapped open source projects. The only way anyone knows your intent as a developer is in the restrictions and terms you release under. There are open source contributors that really want nothing. It makes no sense to say you want nothing and then get upset when you don’t get something. If someone doesn’t like Apache 2.0, MIT, or BSD, there are lots of other options they can release the source under, or they can start a proprietary software business. The donation here is great obviously, “paying it forward” is great, but so is using software under the terms its writer told you you could.
- AussieWog93 10mo ago
  A lot of people arguing the philosophy here, but I'm willing to bet that sneak simply had very strong negative experiences around gift giving growing up. For a lot of people, a gift is not a gift but an invitation to abuse, and it's hard to be rational or pro-social about it when you were on the receiving end of that as a child.
  - sneak 9mo ago
    Thanks for the completely off base psychoanalysis. You’re wrong. I am simply tired of people pretending that using free software means that the author is owed a damn thing, even if you go and make a billion dollars with it. It doesn’t affect them one way or another what you do with something that they willingly chose to make no longer theirs. After releasing something as f/oss it shouldn’t even be called “yours” because you wrote it. After you choose to release it as free and open source, it is everyone’s software; it is no longer yours and the fact that you wrote it is now irrelevant.
- bean469 9mo ago
  > Gifts do not confer obligation. Technically not, but giving back is a nice thing to do
- account42 9mo ago
  There are different kinds of gifts and different kinds of obligations. When you continuously rely on gifts without giving anything back even though you could afford to then you are behaving parasitically. Or in other words: Bruh, we live in a society.

sneak 10mo ago

Gifts do not confer obligation. Copying deprives the original party of nothing. Absolutely nothing about free software requires or even implies any responsibility to “give back”. This idea that anyone making money with free software somehow owes the original authors anything (or “should” donate a portion of their profits) is ridiculous. If the authors wanted money for their software, they would have sold it instead of giving it away for free as a gift. By releasing software under free software licenses you are explicitly stating that you do not expect or anticipate payment for it. The licenses (that they freely chose) are clear. Free software, in addition to being free as in speech, is also always free as in beer. My friend bought me lunch. I used that energy at my job. Do I owe them part of my paycheck?

kwanbix 10mo ago
It is the moral thing to do.
- sneak 10mo ago
  I disagree. The moral thing to do would be to respect the stated wishes of the author of the software, who made clear when they published it that no payments of any kind are expected. If I gave you a gift and you tried to give me money, I would be offended. I’m not saying free software publishers wouldn’t accept donations - just that publishing free software is giving a gift to the world, and there is NO moral obligation placed on recipients. That’s the point of free software.
  - kwanbix 10mo ago
    What can I say. That you can not see it speaks volumes about your moral compas.
  - allyouseed 10mo ago
    How is this the bridge you're hiding under? You are simultaneously arguing for 'moral' subjectivity while utilizing the strawman of 'moral obligation'. Who would enforce this 'obliging' if the subject of morality is still up for debate? You are tying yourself in embarrassing knots over someone spreading their wealth, unsolicited, to people who helped them achieve it? Why? What's the end goal? Go argue with someone about the morality of environmental impacts of tech... or something...
emseetech 10mo ago
Copyleft removes legal obligation but we're free to confer a social obligation.
wilde 10mo ago
If your friend keeps taking you out to lunch and you never return the favor, he’s probably going to stop.
- DrewADesign 10mo ago
  This guy would probably cancel, anyway, because his friend didn't want to pay him for driving them to the restaurant.
  - collingreen 10mo ago
    I'm giving the pleasure of being in my incredible presence why should I do that for free?
    - jaggederest 10mo ago
      I'm reminded of this story in the New Yorker: https://archive.ph/wNydh https://archive.ph/wNydh
      - collingreen 9mo ago
        I laughed out loud, thank you for sharing this.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
poly2it 10mo ago
This ignores the practical economics of open source. I'm not sure what you suggest by jumping around definitions like this.
sanex 10mo ago
You have a social obligation to buy your friend lunch sometime.
bevr1337 10mo ago
> Gifts do not confer obligation. Remind me, which Ferengi Rule of Acquisition is this? There's not much argument to be had. You've created a logical justification for a myopic, misanthropic world view. > My friend bought me lunch. I used that energy at my job. Do I owe them part of my paycheck? Many find reciprocation important in a relationship.
- not_a_bot_4sho 10mo ago
  > Remind me, which Ferengi Rule of Acquisition is this? You made my morning with this quip.
- Ygg2 10mo ago
  > Remind me, which Ferengi Rule of Acquisition is this? Never spend more for an acquisition than you have to. https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition
- somenameforme 10mo ago
  How about #59: "Free advice is seldom cheap." Because you're basically saying that there's no such thing as free, and it's simply an 'unclarified financial contract to be consolidated at a later time.' Quark would approve! If I'm paying for a friend's lunch it's because I want to, not because I expect anything from him in the future. And beyond that, I do not consider downloading something somebody has released for free as establishing a relationship.
  - altairprime 10mo ago
    I prefer #68 here: “Compassion is no substitute for a profit.” The donation is compassionate; retaining it would be more profitable.
- nu11ptr 10mo ago
  > You've created a logical justification for a myopic, misanthropic world view. Nobody said it wouldn't be nice, but that it does not confer "obligation". This is the key word. I would argue a world where people do things because they want to, and not because they feel they have to, would actually generally be a nicer world to live in. > Many find reciprocation important in a relationship. Yes, and those sorts of relationships aren't really built on much if a gift obligates the other to repay. Why even buy lunch then? It just becomes this back and forth obligation and it is wearing and actually erodes the relationship slightly, if anything. I would argue a true gift is one that does not obligate the other party to reciprocate. That does NOT mean it would not be a decent thing to do something nice (for the other person OR someone else), but just that it is not obligated. The person should not feel a weight to do so. Once this weight is lifted, it is actually very freeing, and it strengthens the relationship, if anything.
rvnx 10mo ago
It's nice to give back to people, no matter the amount. https://framerusercontent.com/images/9GsFxfDtmRFpfgGlNH61QsX3kY.png?width=1919&height=1079 https://framerusercontent.com/images/9GsFxfDtmRFpfgGlNH61QsX... He also needs that tool to stay alive for the future, even if not considering the past. It's a bit better position for everyone.
Sajarin 10mo ago
I think this comes off a bit too strong (as well as the replies to this to be fair) The example isn't quite accurate. If a friend bought you lunch, the social norm of reciprocity would incline you towards buying them lunch in the future (i.e part of your paycheck) Free open source software is a public good. While there is no obligation to give back, giving back helps that public good become more useful to other people (including your future self). I'm against making contribution an obligation, but I'm not against light social pressure upon philanthropists who have the means (which is what the parent comment was doing).
- sneak 10mo ago
  In the lunch example, reciprocation would be releasing additional software under free software licenses, not payments. There should be zero social pressure, as gifts do not convey obligation. It was the software author’s explicit choice when licensing and publishing the software to make clear that payment is not expected.
  - tormeh 10mo ago
    Gifts do confer obligations. This is widely agreed upon in human society. If you ignore this there will be consequences, just no legal ones.
  - lovich 10mo ago
    Do you routinely struggle in social situations? Do you frequently have people tell you that you misinterpreted social cues? You are correct that no legal obligation was passed, but generally people feel that if you got something from a community that helped you succeed greatly you do have an obligation to throw something back to the organization to help it help others. If you don't, that'ss generally classified by people as being a jackass
ralusek 10mo ago
> Absolutely nothing about free software requires or even implies any responsibility to “give back” You're correct about that. The free software itself doesn't confer any responsibility. But the free software exists inside other contexts. Social/moral context. There're also future contexts for you or humanity. For example, if developing free software proves to be a sustainable model for people to do, you might get other projects LIKE the Blender Foundation to crop up in the future. You might benefit from them directly, or benefit from them by enjoying the things people produce with them. Also, if it's a tool that you like to use, maybe you just want that specific tool to continue to improve.
qmmmur 10mo ago
> My friend bought me lunch. I used that energy at my job. Do I owe them part of my paycheck? No but you owe him lunch next time. Wait till you find out that you have to share your birthday cake on your birthday.
Kye 10mo ago
What is this, the lawyer planet from Farscape? You shouldn't need a contract to be prosocial.
drnick1 10mo ago
There is no obligation, but since they find the project useful and are making money from it, they want to make sure it is not abandoned. The best way to ensure that is to fund its development. This also gives them direct access to the devs and can request new features or bug fixes that impact them to be prioritized. Everyone benefits. It's probably much cheaper to make a contribution than to do that in house and upstream the changes.
hnbad 10mo ago
Not under capitalism, sure. But traditionally gift economies worked exactly because people understood that gifts also imbue a burden of responsibility. Not necessarily in repayment but to honor the gift and pay the good deed forward instead of simply enriching yourself.
MildlySerious 10mo ago
There really is no prize for being technically correct on this one. Someone built this and is letting you have it. For free. There is no legal obligation or law of the universe here, sure, but if you're in the top 1% of benefactors of this pro bono work, you have the opportunity to do some good and make sure that others, like you, get the chance to benefit from this free work in the future. There is a pretty straightforward argument to be made that this falls under the "with great power comes great opportunity" umbrella of moral reasoning, since this work empowered CA to create the game that earned him a lot of money.
- sneak 10mo ago
  There is no moral obligation, either - that’s my point. They chose to give it away for free. It’s the author’s explicit decision that there is no obligation placed on recipients. Giving a fake gift that comes with unspoken strings attached (and “keeping score” in your head) is the passive-aggressive, immoral act. If reciprocity is expected, it is definitionally not a gift. Releasing software under a free software license is a choice to give a gift to the world. If the author wanted moral obligation strings attached, the license would say that.
  - nothrabannosir 10mo ago
    The license only says what you MUST and MUST NOT do. The comment you’re replying to talked about what they SHOULD do. These are different concepts and they are codified differently by humans: the former in licenses, the latter socially. You’re experiencing that process right now.
    - oblio 10mo ago
      "You are being counseled at this very moment" :-))
    - andy99 10mo ago
      That’s certainly not a legal principle of any kind. It’s like the 17 pieces of flair thing, if they want you to have more, they should tell you, we don’t need some weird unspoken guidelines related to licenses, it’s why we have the license. If I get tremendous value out of MS office 365 but my agreement with MS charges me only $15/month, should I donate some extra to them because of how much it helps my business?
TomatoCo 10mo ago
What do you think about putting the shopping cart back in its corral?
- knowitnone3 10mo ago
  If you do that, then you're taking jobs away.
miiiiiike 10mo ago
Upvoting because you’re correct. Commenting because you’re wrong. Donate to the F/OSS projects that you used to make it big.
andy99 10mo ago
I agree with this - I have often seen people get upset because someone used a project that was explicitly licensed to allow them to do whatever they wanted with it, with no obligation, in a way that they don’t like, or without doing something that’s apparently expected of them. This happened e.g. with whatever Amazon services wrapped open source projects. The only way anyone knows your intent as a developer is in the restrictions and terms you release under. There are open source contributors that really want nothing. It makes no sense to say you want nothing and then get upset when you don’t get something. If someone doesn’t like Apache 2.0, MIT, or BSD, there are lots of other options they can release the source under, or they can start a proprietary software business. The donation here is great obviously, “paying it forward” is great, but so is using software under the terms its writer told you you could.
AussieWog93 10mo ago
A lot of people arguing the philosophy here, but I'm willing to bet that sneak simply had very strong negative experiences around gift giving growing up. For a lot of people, a gift is not a gift but an invitation to abuse, and it's hard to be rational or pro-social about it when you were on the receiving end of that as a child.
- sneak 9mo ago
  Thanks for the completely off base psychoanalysis. You’re wrong. I am simply tired of people pretending that using free software means that the author is owed a damn thing, even if you go and make a billion dollars with it. It doesn’t affect them one way or another what you do with something that they willingly chose to make no longer theirs. After releasing something as f/oss it shouldn’t even be called “yours” because you wrote it. After you choose to release it as free and open source, it is everyone’s software; it is no longer yours and the fact that you wrote it is now irrelevant.
bean469 9mo ago
> Gifts do not confer obligation. Technically not, but giving back is a nice thing to do
account42 9mo ago
There are different kinds of gifts and different kinds of obligations. When you continuously rely on gifts without giving anything back even though you could afford to then you are behaving parasitically. Or in other words: Bruh, we live in a society.