Why do people bother with open source? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why do people bother with open source?

#21

Post by kbolino » Sat, Mar 09, 2024, 5:42 PM UTC

andybak wrote: post #6

CuriousCosmic wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't necessarily say that it isn't anti-capitalist. Free software is perfectly compatible with a free market but the ethos of free software is pretty anti capitalist.

Tangent time. I genuinely don't understand what people generally mean when they use the phrase "anti-capitalist". I doubt most are Tankies or full-on Utopian Anarchists. I suspect a fair few mean "I want a mixed economy that's (a lot) fairer than the one we've got now" (which is probably my position). But outside of these three positions - what do people mean?

In this case, it seems to refer to the concentration of capital in the hands of a few. Proprietary software is much less accessible outside of its allowed uses and especially outside of the hands of the people who have its source code. This allows its owners to keep most of the benefits for themselves.

There's definitely a Marxist flavor to this meaning, though I don't think you have to be a tankie to use it that way.

Re: Why do people bother with open source?

#22

Post by andybak » Sat, Mar 09, 2024, 5:42 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #16

andybak wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangent time. I genuinely don't understand what people generally mean when they use the phrase "anti-capitalist". I doubt most are Tankies or full-on Utopian Anarchists. I suspect a fair few mean "I want a mixed economy that's (a lot) fairer than the one we've got now" (which is probably my position). But outside of these three positions - what do people mean?

They're opposed to capitalism on some level. Though it's probably true that some are just social democrats that want heavy regulation of capitalism. Another possible alternative is being a market socialist (wanting an economy that's basically all worker owned co-ops).

> Another possible alternative is being a market socialist

OK. I hadn't considered that option. I guess I'm interested to understand the middle ground between "centralized state ownership" and "no state but somehow it doesn't turn into hellscape of warlords and bandits".

Does this model generally allow private property but exclude "the means of production" etc?

Re: Why do people bother with open source?

#23

Post by andybak » Sat, Mar 09, 2024, 5:43 PM UTC

kbolino wrote: post #21

andybak wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangent time. I genuinely don't understand what people generally mean when they use the phrase "anti-capitalist". I doubt most are Tankies or full-on Utopian Anarchists. I suspect a fair few mean "I want a mixed economy that's (a lot) fairer than the one we've got now" (which is probably my position). But outside of these three positions - what do people mean?

In this case, it seems to refer to the concentration of capital in the hands of a few. Proprietary software is much less accessible outside of its allowed uses and especially outside of the hands of the people who have its source code. This allows its owners to keep most of the benefits for themselves. There's definitely a Marxist flavor to this meaning, though I don't think you have to be a tankie to use it that way…

I also think it's possible to be a Marxist without being a Tankie - I'm just not clear on the specific forms that would take.

Re: Why do people bother with open source?

#24

Post by kbolino » Sat, Mar 09, 2024, 5:44 PM UTC

bdw5204 wrote: post #19

graemep wrote: post #4

Majority of projects, does not mean majority of code. Big projects have large numbers of contributors and far more code. The linux kernel is one project, a few lines of code might be one project too. The anti-capitalist bit is not true. All the major open source licenses allow commercial use. Open source (especially copyleft) is encourages free markets because it makes it harder to erect barrier to entry or lock cust…

One reason why employers looking at open source contributions would be pernicious is that it biases them towards hiring people who have no life outside of writing code. That perpetuates a prevalent culture in the industry where people can't just write code for a living and do something else with the rest of their time. People should be able to have other interests besides code and still have a livelihood.

Conversely, I should be able to spend some time doing something other than working for the man or building something that has to be directly monetized. Contributing to open source projects, even in minor ways, provides some way for me to build a portfolio outside of the constraints of a 9 to 5.

Re: Why do people bother with open source?

#25

Post by aamargulies » Sat, Mar 09, 2024, 5:46 PM UTC

This reminds me of the story of one of the only times Newton was known to have laughed:

“According to Henry P. Macomber's paper "Glimpses of the Human Side of Sir Isaac Newton," the great scientist worked with secretary Humphrey Newton during one of the busier periods of his life. Per The Newton Project, William Stukeley said he only witnessed only one laugh from the genius. It came about because Isaac had loaned an acquaintance a copy of "Euclid" and later asked them their thoughts on the book. The friend responded by asking why studying such things would ever be of any help to them, "upon which," wrote William Stukeley in a letter to Richard Mead, "Sir Isaac was very merry."”

Re: Why do people bother with open source?

#26

Post by acureau » Sat, Mar 09, 2024, 5:47 PM UTC

reactordev wrote: post #11

“People want to create [sic] things that are useful to other people.” For me, it’s this. So many useful tools and projects helped me when I was getting started that I feel obliged to give back for life. If my abilities came from reading tutorials, books, open source code, etc then shouldn’t I give back? Must everything be for profits? My employer owns me from 9-5 but not my side projects. I can explore other areas of…

Could not agree more, this exactly describes my motivation in publishing my own projects. I have benefited from the open-source ecosystem and I want to it to thrive into the future. My salary provides me with a comfortable life, and I doubt I could sell the kind of things I enjoy making.

Re: Why do people bother with open source?

#27

Post by omnicognate » Sat, Mar 09, 2024, 5:49 PM UTC

> The political hopes that free software would help build a more free and anti-capitalist future are largely forgotten, and when remembered, seem embarrassingly specific to a certain mode of computing.

We are living in the "more free" future (it was never anti-capitalist) that free software built, and it spans most "modes of computing", dominating some. The thing that's specific to one mode of computing is having no practical alternative to an exploitative, consumer-hostile, proprietary walled garden. That's specific to mobile computing, and it's not some inevitable consequence of capitalism, only of monopoly power and weak regulation.

Re: Why do people bother with open source?

#28

Post by bdw5204 » Sat, Mar 09, 2024, 5:53 PM UTC

ravelantunes wrote: post #9

mattl wrote: post #2

I don’t see free software as anti-capitalist. When the FSF got started they sold tapes of free software, prior to that Stallman did that himself to make money. The FSF kept doing it until it was impractical but a good way for companies to make a donation and receive something practical in return. The tapes also came with printed manuals and tshirts.

Not arguing on whether free software is or not anti-capitalist, but want to point out that the act of monetizing goods and services isn't incompatible with anti-capitalism.

I'd say it depends upon how you define "capitalism" because most advocates of "capitalism" define it as an economy of free and voluntary exchanges while most of its detractors define it as an economy of giant corporations that oppress their workers and buy politicians to protect themselves from competition. The staunchest advocates of "capitalism" and its staunchest critics ironically tend to share the same hatred of corporate welfare and monopoly. Both are usually all for the little guy selling goods and services.

Just like with "socialism", most discussions about "capitalism" are actually people with different definitions talking past each other. I'd say the important issue in economics is monopoly vs anti-monopoly not "capitalism" vs "socialism" and free software is definitely on the side of anti-monopoly.

Re: Why do people bother with open source?

#29

Post by kbolino » Sat, Mar 09, 2024, 5:54 PM UTC

I don't see many touching on the toxic community aspect. I don't know where the author has been lately, but while there are bastions of (more or less) healthy, functional communication here and there, high levels of toxic antisocial behavior can be found all over the place. Many video game developers are drawing back their community engagement because of toxic player responses. Spending any significant amount of time in various parts of the US will illustrate the rise of antisocial behavior; on the roads, in the stores, etc. "Content moderation" is the norm on the Internet nowadays, and that's not counting all the forums that don't allow any user-generated comments at all anymore. Courtesy seems to be something you have to pay for now (and even then, it's not guaranteed). However, the lack of it is not hardly unique to open source projects.

Re: Why do people bother with open source?

#30

Post by jandrewrogers » Sat, Mar 09, 2024, 5:55 PM UTC

Open source is not "anti-capitalist" nor contradictory to capitalism. Indeed, it reflects people freely choosing how they want to allocate their resources on their own terms. There are few things more capitalist than that. It does represent competition to people who would rather not compete if they can avoid it.

Similarly, I am skeptical that experienced software engineers see open source contributions as being a tacit employment application. The reality is that many of the best engineers have significant restrictions on their ability to contribute to open source and employers know this.

I think it is legitimate to point out the reality that external contributions are typically non-existent and that toxic entitlement by users is unfortunately common. In this regard, it is often a thankless and sometimes negative experience for most people. But people engage in many thankless and often unrewarding tasks outside of software because they still think it is worth doing.