Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No Free Features

landshark.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 87 posts

Re: No Free Features

#51

Post by paulryanrogers »

dahart wrote: post #26

I’m fully in agreement with the goal here, that for-profit companies should pay for changes they request. And some companies do pay OSS projects for support. SQLite is one high profile example ( https://www.sqlite.org/consortium.html ), and there are others with varying degrees of success. The problem I see here is that there is no clear or easy path to making this goal a reality everywhere. What really happens most…

We as engineers are making choices that will certain incur maintenance costs choosing any third party solution. And the taller the dependency tree the more fragile everything becomes.

I dropped Drupal years ago because upgrading was such a nightmare. More component-ized solutions can still have the same problem.

Ultimately businesses are making the choices and tradeoffs whether they realize it right away or not. It'd be great if there were a lower friction way to consume and contribute without burying the real costs.

Re: No Free Features

#54

Post by dahart »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #36
dahart wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally, I think you’re right, a lot of companies are open to paying for it if it’s saving money and providing value. I mean, all companies already do have a software expenditure budget for commercial software. But I guess it is not simple to just put OSS projects in the same budget bucket as proprietary software. Companies have a special aversion to unexpected expenses. I’ve done business with companies that would r…

> If an OSS project needs funding, maybe it’s best to just offer it commercially in the first place? There’s quite a lot of overhead involved in running a business relative to an open source project, and this is probably not the kind of work that an open source developer would find fulfilling. Additionally, even if the developer is also able and willing to quit his job to bootstrap his business, that overhead adds to…

Totally agree on the goal, it would be great if companies established slush funds for their OSS support. That said, it’s not anyone’s responsibility to provide an OSS dev with fulfilling work but themselves. If they don’t want to ask for money, chances are they won’t get any. And it’s not really relevant what money is or is not a pittance for a company, they don’t generally decide their expenditures based on having spare cash, they buy what they need and try to keep what they need to a minimum. As an engineer, if I ask for a $20K budget for OSS support, chances are I will be flatly denied. The good news is many companies already do support the OSS they depend on in multiple ways. The largest tech companies are spending a great deal more than $20k on various kinds of OSS support, FAANG companies spend millions on it.

The terms of the economic exchange of any software is the author’s to set. It they want money for their work, in the majority of cases they will need to ask for it, it’s not going to be handed to them, especially when the software is given away for free in the first place. By giving the software away, the author is setting the terms of the economic exchange. Expecting the terms to change later without asking is just as bad as anyone expecting free support.

I think if we want to meaningfully support open source, we should figure out how to pay for the software in the first place to use it, not expect companies to throw a dollar in after the fact or only if they ask for changes. Making change requests does not align with the value of open source for most companies. The primary value is in it’s existence.

Re: No Free Features

#55

Post by alangibson »

jefftk wrote: post #46
alangibson wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> extremely far from unethical to file a feature request. I'm suggesting that it is in fact an ethical problem to try to get something for nothing if you break it down. It's no different than walking into an artists shop and asking if you can just have a painting. It doesn't make you a terrible person, but I think it's a problematic norm. Now there's no requirement that the developer actually take the compensation (w…

I don't think this is a good analogy. We have a strong social expectation that products in stores cost money. When an artist opens a shop with many paintings, each with a price tag, everyone understands that the expected exchange is money for paintings. On the other hand, with open source, we have a different set of social conventions. While the authors/maintainers are not obligated to handle bug reports or feature r…

> On the other hand, with open source, we have a different set of social conventions

Agreed. I'd like to see this particular convention change.

> Do you view it as ethical for someone to use open source software without payment?

Sure, assuming the license says it's ok. So I guess technically were talking about FOSS.

> Isn't that also getting something for nothing?

I didn't put this well before, but the problem isn't in getting something for nothing per se. The difference comes from the cost imposed on the other party involved. If I download your code, the cost we both pay rounds off to 0. But if you implement something for me, you pay a hefty cost in time while my cost remains 0. So all the value produced goes to me, and you get very close to nothing.

I see a problem with any situation where you end up worse off and I end up better off. This is the source of much open source project mortality. The core developer(s) give until they give out.

> Is it ethical for someone to ask a question on one of my blog posts without offering to pay me for my answer?

Depends. If they are profiting off of the response and all you get is the work of answering, then no. You will eventually get bitter and stop blogging unless you are some angelic person.

Re: No Free Features

#56

Post by jefftk »

black_puppydog wrote: post #50
jefftk wrote: post #34

> I look forward to a day when asking anyone to do unpaid labor is considered unethical by our industry. That goes for feature requests on open source projects ... While I'm sure there are some open source developers who see feature requests as a burden, lots of us just want to make useful software. If someone lets me know about a way that icdiff or anything else I maintain could be better, I'm happy to hear it. I'm…

I don't think it's a hard and fast rule of course, there's always context. If it's one hobbyist asking another, nicely and without expecting anything, fine. If it is an engineer asking nicely because it would help them do their work better... sorry, but that's asking one dev to improve the balance sheet of the other's employer . That's one of the distinctions I'd make.

Here's a random simple request I got on icdiff: https://github.com/jeffkaufman/icdiff/issues/136

"ptzz: I would be nice with a new release so that options in .gitconfig works."

I have no idea who ptzz is, and it really doesn't matter to me whether they're a hobbyist playing around or at a company using icdiff for paid work. Either way, I was happy for a friendly reminder that I hadn't done a release in a while and that there were people looking forward to one.

Re: No Free Features

#57

Post by alangibson »

dahart wrote: post #42
alangibson wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> extremely far from unethical to file a feature request. I'm suggesting that it is in fact an ethical problem to try to get something for nothing if you break it down. It's no different than walking into an artists shop and asking if you can just have a painting. It doesn't make you a terrible person, but I think it's a problematic norm. Now there's no requirement that the developer actually take the compensation (w…

> it is in fact an ethical problem to try to get something for nothing if you break it down The problem with this statement is that the software was offered by the author as something for nothing in the first place. The OSS authors propose that you walk into their shop and walk out with (a copy of) the painting. The problem isn’t taking the painting, it’s coming back later and asking for a change of background color…

I'm not really talking about the software as it exists at any given moment. The right to make a copy and use it is explicitly granted by the license. I'm focused strictly on change requests.

> The problem isn’t taking the painting, it’s coming back later and asking for a change of background color or a new frame, and expecting that to also be free.

Assuming the painting cost nothing to copy but costs alot to change, then I agree.

Re: No Free Features

#58

Post by alangibson »

jefftk wrote: post #56
black_puppydog wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's a hard and fast rule of course, there's always context. If it's one hobbyist asking another, nicely and without expecting anything, fine. If it is an engineer asking nicely because it would help them do their work better... sorry, but that's asking one dev to improve the balance sheet of the other's employer . That's one of the distinctions I'd make.

Here's a random simple request I got on icdiff: https://github.com/jeffkaufman/icdiff/issues/136 "ptzz: I would be nice with a new release so that options in .gitconfig works." I have no idea who ptzz is, and it really doesn't matter to me whether they're a hobbyist playing around or at a company using icdiff for paid work. Either way, I was happy for a friendly reminder that I hadn't done a release in a while and th…

This isn't a great example since dropping a new release is pretty trivial, but consider the counterfactual where you're having trouble paying rent and you do know that ptzz is a highly placed engineer at a Fortune 500 company.

A little compensation starts to sound like a good idea.

Re: No Free Features

#59

Post by maerF0x0 »

If I give you a large number of scratch tickets (such that expected value is > $0), could it be considered compensation? Starting and contributing to a side project often has EROI > 0 and for many _that_ is their compensation. Now, as for Marak who is facing homelessness etc, that's just dumb (for society to treat such a beneficial member in such a manner) .

Re: No Free Features

#60

Post by jefftk »

alangibson wrote: post #55
jefftk wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is a good analogy. We have a strong social expectation that products in stores cost money. When an artist opens a shop with many paintings, each with a price tag, everyone understands that the expected exchange is money for paintings. On the other hand, with open source, we have a different set of social conventions. While the authors/maintainers are not obligated to handle bug reports or feature r…

> On the other hand, with open source, we have a different set of social conventions Agreed. I'd like to see this particular convention change. > Do you view it as ethical for someone to use open source software without payment? Sure, assuming the license says it's ok. So I guess technically were talking about FOSS. > Isn't that also getting something for nothing? I didn't put this well before, but the problem isn't…

> if you implement something for me, you pay a hefty cost in time while my cost remains 0. So all the value produced goes to me, and you get very close to nothing.

I think this is the core of our disagreement. If someone makes a feature request, and I think it makes the project better overall and decide to implement it, I have benefited. I wrote the software because I wanted it to be good and useful, and they have helped me make it better and more useful.

If someone asks for a feature that only would benefit them, that's different, but I'm also not likely to implement it. Similarly, if I were getting a large number of unpleasant entitled requests, I might get grumpy, but having those requests come with payments attached wouldn't help my feelings much. I do this for fun in my spare time; I don't want it to be a job.

> If they are profiting off of the response and all you get is the work of answering, then no.

I disagree there as well. I'll answer if I feel like answering, and if they ask an interesting question then I'm happy to do that. It doesn't matter to me whether or not they make a profit from my response. I have several blog posts [1][2][3] where I would love it if someone would make a successful commercial product out of, since that would let more people use the tech, and if someone was working in this direction I would be happy to answer questions.

[1] https://www.jefftk.com/p/footboard-v3

[2] https://www.jefftk.com/bass-whistle

[3] https://www.jefftk.com/p/bucket-brigade-singing

Post reply on HN