4 ms·

Surely "the right thing to do" includes some element of the authors' explicitly stated preferences about how they wish to be treated. In this case, they chose

by rdbl27 1mo ago

Surely "the right thing to do" includes some element of the authors' explicitly stated preferences about how they wish to be treated. In this case, they chose -- explicitly -- to NOT require any payment or contribution from anyone. Your feelings about what constitutes "the right thing to do" are apparently different from those of the authors. You believe you know better than they themselves do how they should be treated.

Dylan16807 1mo ago
> Surely "the right thing to do" includes some element of the authors' explicitly stated preferences about how they wish to be treated. It does! And they wish to get donations. There's a button right at the top on the site making that clear. > In this case, they chose -- explicitly -- to NOT require any payment or contribution from anyone. Yes, so what? It is true that they wished to not require payment. That is one of their wishes, but they have more than one wish. And if they required payment, that wouldn't be a donation anyway.
- rdbl27 26d ago
  So.... Since they explicitly chose not to require any payment, there is no moral obligation to pay them. That's the point. Would it be nice? Sure. But "not donating" is also fine. "Donations" are, by definition, entirely voluntary. Whether someone using the software under its proper licensing terms is wealthy, whether you approve of their business model, or other factors are all irrelevant.
  - Dylan16807 25d ago
    > So.... Since they explicitly chose not to require any payment, there is no moral obligation to pay them. That's the point. Requirements are about legal obligations, not moral ones. > Would it be nice? Sure. But "not donating" is also fine. It's in general fine not to donate to libreoffice. But that doesn't extend to 100% of circumstances. > "Donations" are, by definition, entirely voluntary. Whether someone using the software under its proper licensing terms is wealthy, whether you approve of their business model, or other factors are all irrelevant. As a third party I can judge someone for not donating based on their circumstances. It's not irrelevant. The moral implications are not part of the definition of donation.
mastazi 1mo ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
marcus_holmes 1mo ago
They clearly would like donations, but choose not to require any payments. Your line of reasoning seems to be along the lines of "anything not forbidden is compulsory" which is not a good place. Having the choice to donate but not being required to is good. And yes, I think that if OpenAI is choosing to include an entire copy of LibreOffice in their product, it is definitely the right thing to do to sling them a donation. Note that the moral thing to do is not always the required thing to do, or even the legal thing to do.
- satvikpendem 1mo ago
  More like, don't expect anything if not forced. Most people only generally pay for things if there is no other option. It's about what's moral (even then debatable as everyone has different morals) versus what's realistic to expect.
  - marcus_holmes 1mo ago
    The Guardian's funding model [0] proves this wrong. People will absolutely pay for things voluntarily if you ask them, without forcing them to. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2018/nov/12/katharine-viner-guardian-million-reader-funding https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2018/nov/12/katharine... In a nutshell - voluntary funding by readership. No paywall. You can read as many stories as you like for free, and donate if you want. It works.
    - Bluestein 1mo ago
      I've always wondered how they are actually making ends meet, if at all, that is, what their budget looks like.-
    - satvikpendem 1mo ago
      That article has no detail. How much did they make? They said they hope to break even in 2019 so they weren't profitable, what are the latest stats? Compare this to NYTimes which has been crushing it after implementing their paywalled subscription.

by rdbl27 1mo ago

Dylan16807 1mo ago

> Surely "the right thing to do" includes some element of the authors' explicitly stated preferences about how they wish to be treated. It does! And they wish to get donations. There's a button right at the top on the site making that clear. > In this case, they chose -- explicitly -- to NOT require any payment or contribution from anyone. Yes, so what? It is true that they wished to not require payment. That is one of their wishes, but they have more than one wish. And if they required payment, that wouldn't be a donation anyway.

rdbl27 26d ago
So.... Since they explicitly chose not to require any payment, there is no moral obligation to pay them. That's the point. Would it be nice? Sure. But "not donating" is also fine. "Donations" are, by definition, entirely voluntary. Whether someone using the software under its proper licensing terms is wealthy, whether you approve of their business model, or other factors are all irrelevant.
- Dylan16807 25d ago
  > So.... Since they explicitly chose not to require any payment, there is no moral obligation to pay them. That's the point. Requirements are about legal obligations, not moral ones. > Would it be nice? Sure. But "not donating" is also fine. It's in general fine not to donate to libreoffice. But that doesn't extend to 100% of circumstances. > "Donations" are, by definition, entirely voluntary. Whether someone using the software under its proper licensing terms is wealthy, whether you approve of their business model, or other factors are all irrelevant. As a third party I can judge someone for not donating based on their circumstances. It's not irrelevant. The moral implications are not part of the definition of donation.

mastazi 1mo ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

marcus_holmes 1mo ago

They clearly would like donations, but choose not to require any payments. Your line of reasoning seems to be along the lines of "anything not forbidden is compulsory" which is not a good place. Having the choice to donate but not being required to is good. And yes, I think that if OpenAI is choosing to include an entire copy of LibreOffice in their product, it is definitely the right thing to do to sling them a donation. Note that the moral thing to do is not always the required thing to do, or even the legal thing to do.

satvikpendem 1mo ago
More like, don't expect anything if not forced. Most people only generally pay for things if there is no other option. It's about what's moral (even then debatable as everyone has different morals) versus what's realistic to expect.
- marcus_holmes 1mo ago
  The Guardian's funding model [0] proves this wrong. People will absolutely pay for things voluntarily if you ask them, without forcing them to. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2018/nov/12/katharine-viner-guardian-million-reader-funding https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2018/nov/12/katharine... In a nutshell - voluntary funding by readership. No paywall. You can read as many stories as you like for free, and donate if you want. It works.
  - Bluestein 1mo ago
    I've always wondered how they are actually making ends meet, if at all, that is, what their budget looks like.-
  - satvikpendem 1mo ago
    That article has no detail. How much did they make? They said they hope to break even in 2019 so they weren't profitable, what are the latest stats? Compare this to NYTimes which has been crushing it after implementing their paywalled subscription.