5 ms·

Attack the argument not the man. Whether he is set for life or not has nothing to do _in this context_, since, presumably, people who open source their code do

by elteto 7mo ago

Attack the argument not the man. Whether he is set for life or not has nothing to do _in this context_, since, presumably, people who open source their code do not care about profit.

28304283409234 7mo ago
Open Sourcing software has _nothing_ to do with 'gratis'. Can't believe this still needs repeating in 2026.
- alpaca128 7mo ago
  It's not a requirement but it is so correlated that there's no need to react so strongly. I struggle to remember a single paid open source tool off the top of my head but could name dozens that you can just use for free.
jraph 7mo ago
> presumably, people who open source their code do not care about profit That's not true. There are business models around open source, and many companies making money from open source work. (I'm only reacting to this specific part of your comment)
- elteto 7mo ago
  I think you are splitting hairs. Yes those models “exist”, if by exist you mean they have dual-licensing setups with different tiers (community, professional, etc). The point is that most individuals who open source their code do so without expecting financial returns from it. In that context, whether Carmack has a $1 or $1e9 doesn’t make a difference.
  - crote 7mo ago
    You're forgetting about Red Hat & friends, where the software is 100% open source and the for-profit product is actually the support contract.
  - jraph 7mo ago
    I'm not splitting hairs, it's a crucial aspect and a common misconception that it would be quite helpful to get rid of (hence my reaction). And no, it's not necessarily dual licensing (why not though) or different tiers, or fauxpensource or whatever, there are many projects which are completely open source. See for instance Nextcloud, XWiki, PostgreSQL, Linux... Again, as I said, I was only reacting to that specific part of your comment, because it is obviously wrong. (and thus the rest can't follow since you use it to draw a conclusion -- which doesn't mean you can't fix this, I don't know, actually I didn't get your point and I don't see how it counters what you replied to -- but I'm not really concerned about this part)
  - wiseowise 7mo ago
    > The point is that most individuals who open source their code do so without expecting financial returns from it. In that context, whether Carmack has a $1 or $1e9 doesn’t make a difference. Bruh, there are thousands of projects, maybe tens of thousands, that survive solely on donations, hundreds thousands written by hungry students trying to land their first gig. Maybe you’re right in “free as in beer” sense, but you’re certainly, majorly wrong in general OSS definition.
radlad 7mo ago
> people who open source their code do not care about profit Not only are there businesses built around open-source work, but it used to be widely-accepted that publishing open-source software was a good way to land a paying gig as a junior. I think that whether you need to continue working to afford to live is very relevant to discussions about AI. Profits don't need to be direct - and licenses are chosen based on a user's particular open-source goals. AI does not respect code's original licensing.
SlinkyOnStairs 7mo ago
> Whether he is set for life or not has nothing to do _in this context_, since, presumably, people who open source their code do not care about profit. What's your point here? Because whether or not someone needs income to pay their bills is MASSIVELY relevant to whether or not they have to care about the profit on their work. The bulk of Open Source maintainers aren't "set for life", and need to get a real job in order to not be homeless.
waynesonfire 7mo ago
> open source their code do not care about profit. Ah, how naive. You're not squinting hard enough.
q3k 7mo ago
> Attack the argument not the man. But the man's argument is that since he sees something a given way then it's the truth. What people are doing in return is showing that he can only do so because of who he is.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
lelanthran 7mo ago
Says who? GPL is transactional. The author's profit is in the up streaming of enhancements. Those who release under GPL absolutely do care about profit, it's just that the profit is measured in contributions.
doctorpangloss 7mo ago
No please, for the love of god, he's been an asshole for decades. He has set back gaming everywhere he's been in charge. The guy makes 1 kind of experience. He's the opposite of a good leader.
- shdh 7mo ago
  Elaborate on your points How has he set back gaming? 1 kind of experience?
  - manytimesaway 7mo ago
    I guess they're talking about the Carmack-led id, which was much less successful & cohesive than the previous iteration of the company. The "one kind of experience" is probably referring to Carmack's comparing story in a video game to story in an adult movie.
pibaker 7mo ago
Pointing out that a man who has achieved financial freedom decades ago may have different priorities than present and future wage slaves isn't attacking the man.
- john_strinlai 7mo ago
  >Pointing out that a man who has achieved financial freedom decades ago may have different priorities than present and future wage slaves isn't attacking the man. saying he has no empathy, and has never had empathy, on the other hand...
wotTH 7mo ago
[flagged]
- elteto 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - wotTH 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
  - array_key_first 7mo ago
    Privilege does matter, obviously, because your perspective and biases influence your opinion. When someone says something, we can't just analyze what they are saying, but why they are saying it. What is their motivation? What are their incentives? If they're right, who wins? Who loses? How much do they lose? This is why politicians are able to lie through their teeth. There's enough people out there who refuse to, or can't, deeply analyze people's words. "Well, the government hasn't yet announced their plans to abuse X Y and Z, so obviously it's not gonna happen!" Such an argument seems painfully poor, but, believe it or not, it's, like, the primary argument when these things come up. At the end of the day, you and me have a lot to lose from AI. Carmack has less, perhaps he even stands to gain. Hm, that colors things, no?
  - wiseowise 7mo ago
    They’re ought to take your whole profession away, threatening to leave you flipping burgers or on the street, but you’re busy protecting Carmack and his $100+ millions online.
wiseowise 7mo ago
> Whether he is set for life or not has nothing to do _in this context_ Being a millionaire set for life, who doesn’t need to work a day if he wants to, has nothing to do _in this_ context of AI companies siphoning away all the open source code, profiting off it, and then threatening to automate away at least one cell of white collar jobs and potentially others too. Hmm.
lmf4lol 7mo ago
For a full understanding of any text, you always need to consider the context as well as the content and the author, in this case Carmack, is part of the context. You cant just separate them. This is especially true when it concerns contemporary issues.

by elteto 7mo ago

Attack the argument not the man. Whether he is set for life or not has nothing to do _in this context_, since, presumably, people who open source their code do not care about profit.

28304283409234 7mo ago

Open Sourcing software has _nothing_ to do with 'gratis'. Can't believe this still needs repeating in 2026.

alpaca128 7mo ago
It's not a requirement but it is so correlated that there's no need to react so strongly. I struggle to remember a single paid open source tool off the top of my head but could name dozens that you can just use for free.

jraph 7mo ago

> presumably, people who open source their code do not care about profit That's not true. There are business models around open source, and many companies making money from open source work. (I'm only reacting to this specific part of your comment)

elteto 7mo ago
I think you are splitting hairs. Yes those models “exist”, if by exist you mean they have dual-licensing setups with different tiers (community, professional, etc). The point is that most individuals who open source their code do so without expecting financial returns from it. In that context, whether Carmack has a $1 or $1e9 doesn’t make a difference.
- crote 7mo ago
  You're forgetting about Red Hat & friends, where the software is 100% open source and the for-profit product is actually the support contract.
- jraph 7mo ago
  I'm not splitting hairs, it's a crucial aspect and a common misconception that it would be quite helpful to get rid of (hence my reaction). And no, it's not necessarily dual licensing (why not though) or different tiers, or fauxpensource or whatever, there are many projects which are completely open source. See for instance Nextcloud, XWiki, PostgreSQL, Linux... Again, as I said, I was only reacting to that specific part of your comment, because it is obviously wrong. (and thus the rest can't follow since you use it to draw a conclusion -- which doesn't mean you can't fix this, I don't know, actually I didn't get your point and I don't see how it counters what you replied to -- but I'm not really concerned about this part)
- wiseowise 7mo ago
  > The point is that most individuals who open source their code do so without expecting financial returns from it. In that context, whether Carmack has a $1 or $1e9 doesn’t make a difference. Bruh, there are thousands of projects, maybe tens of thousands, that survive solely on donations, hundreds thousands written by hungry students trying to land their first gig. Maybe you’re right in “free as in beer” sense, but you’re certainly, majorly wrong in general OSS definition.

radlad 7mo ago

> people who open source their code do not care about profit Not only are there businesses built around open-source work, but it used to be widely-accepted that publishing open-source software was a good way to land a paying gig as a junior. I think that whether you need to continue working to afford to live is very relevant to discussions about AI. Profits don't need to be direct - and licenses are chosen based on a user's particular open-source goals. AI does not respect code's original licensing.

SlinkyOnStairs 7mo ago

> Whether he is set for life or not has nothing to do _in this context_, since, presumably, people who open source their code do not care about profit. What's your point here? Because whether or not someone needs income to pay their bills is MASSIVELY relevant to whether or not they have to care about the profit on their work. The bulk of Open Source maintainers aren't "set for life", and need to get a real job in order to not be homeless.

waynesonfire 7mo ago

> open source their code do not care about profit. Ah, how naive. You're not squinting hard enough.

q3k 7mo ago

> Attack the argument not the man. But the man's argument is that since he sees something a given way then it's the truth. What people are doing in return is showing that he can only do so because of who he is.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

lelanthran 7mo ago

Says who? GPL is transactional. The author's profit is in the up streaming of enhancements. Those who release under GPL absolutely do care about profit, it's just that the profit is measured in contributions.

doctorpangloss 7mo ago

No please, for the love of god, he's been an asshole for decades. He has set back gaming everywhere he's been in charge. The guy makes 1 kind of experience. He's the opposite of a good leader.

shdh 7mo ago
Elaborate on your points How has he set back gaming? 1 kind of experience?
- manytimesaway 7mo ago
  I guess they're talking about the Carmack-led id, which was much less successful & cohesive than the previous iteration of the company. The "one kind of experience" is probably referring to Carmack's comparing story in a video game to story in an adult movie.

pibaker 7mo ago

Pointing out that a man who has achieved financial freedom decades ago may have different priorities than present and future wage slaves isn't attacking the man.

john_strinlai 7mo ago
>Pointing out that a man who has achieved financial freedom decades ago may have different priorities than present and future wage slaves isn't attacking the man. saying he has no empathy, and has never had empathy, on the other hand...

wotTH 7mo ago

[flagged]

elteto 7mo ago
[flagged]
- wotTH 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- array_key_first 7mo ago
  Privilege does matter, obviously, because your perspective and biases influence your opinion. When someone says something, we can't just analyze what they are saying, but why they are saying it. What is their motivation? What are their incentives? If they're right, who wins? Who loses? How much do they lose? This is why politicians are able to lie through their teeth. There's enough people out there who refuse to, or can't, deeply analyze people's words. "Well, the government hasn't yet announced their plans to abuse X Y and Z, so obviously it's not gonna happen!" Such an argument seems painfully poor, but, believe it or not, it's, like, the primary argument when these things come up. At the end of the day, you and me have a lot to lose from AI. Carmack has less, perhaps he even stands to gain. Hm, that colors things, no?
- wiseowise 7mo ago
  They’re ought to take your whole profession away, threatening to leave you flipping burgers or on the street, but you’re busy protecting Carmack and his $100+ millions online.

wiseowise 7mo ago

> Whether he is set for life or not has nothing to do _in this context_ Being a millionaire set for life, who doesn’t need to work a day if he wants to, has nothing to do _in this_ context of AI companies siphoning away all the open source code, profiting off it, and then threatening to automate away at least one cell of white collar jobs and potentially others too. Hmm.

lmf4lol 7mo ago

For a full understanding of any text, you always need to consider the context as well as the content and the author, in this case Carmack, is part of the context. You cant just separate them. This is especially true when it concerns contemporary issues.