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

“Open source” is not broken

nadh.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 259 posts

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#231

Post by DarylZero »

trixie_ wrote: post #205
phkahler wrote: post #57

The core "problem" stems from software having zero production/replication cost, and we live in a world where nobody is used to funding development. Even software companies are charging rent for what already exists, and using some of that to develop their next version or new product. The zero cost reproduction enables the free collaboration, but doesnt fit our existing ideas around paying for things. I think that noti…

Replace 'rent' with 'support. If a commercial company builds on top of software with a license that says 'use at your own risk' then the buck stops with them. That's why companies buy libraries from other companies that are supported - as in the liability can be passed down the line.

All of the commercial software companies also say "use at your own risk." The buck stops with the consumer of the software.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#232

Post by DarylZero »

trixie_ wrote: post #213
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's the case at all. Most commercial software comes with a 'use at your own risk' license, or if you're really lucky, will cap liability at the amount you paid.

If you're a company buying software from a vendor for network management, security, business operations, etc.. and it goes wrong, yes they are very very liable. It's the whole reason why many companies avoid building anything on unsupported technology in the first place.

Most commercial software comes with a 'use at your own risk' license

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#233

Post by DarylZero »

trixie_ wrote: post #207
bluefox wrote: post #130

Solutions involving companies paying directly to the people whose code they use miss the point. The reason is that software shared with the world is often shared out of passion and idealism. If only code that's useful to some companies is paid for, the world of free (as in beer or otherwise) software as we know and love is still unsustainable, and not just because fledgling projects tend to be inferior in many ways t…

It's easy to write code and release it with a 'use at your own risk' license on it. Offering support and accepting liability for problems with your code isn't fun or easy.

No one accepts liability for software problems. Not free software developers, not Microsoft, not Google, not Oracle.

Mostly only OEMs of non-computer equipment, such as Boeing, warranty physical products that include software. For code that doesn't run in planes or cars or other machines -- there is no warranty.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#234

Post by DarylZero »

bityard wrote: post #155
Starlevel001 wrote: post #82

The most obvious sign that "Open source" is broken is that everyone uses that term and not Free Software.

"Free Software" generally refers specifically to GPL-licensed software, which one of many popular "open source" licenses. (GNU claims that their use of the word "Free" refers to freedom, not price.) This (IMO, weird) debate seems to be around all kinds of open source projects.

>"Free Software" generally refers specifically to GPL-licensed software,

That is very incorrect. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#235

Post by akagusu »

Of course "open source" is not broken. It works exactly how it was intended to work and it perfectly models our economic system where a lot of people do essential work but are underpaid or not paid at all.

tl;dr: "open source" means free labor for corporations.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#236

Post by rob_c »

rob_c wrote: post #65

Note to author you're arguing with a bronie, so not exactly a cognitively unbiased crowd... But seriously, this is that businesses are broken and grab a free thing and use it. If businesses were gassing employees because they got free ammonia to clean their buildings we wouldn't be blaming the ammonia producers. Please, stop blaming tools for the axe wielding by morons users. I'd say educate the users, but we all kno…

I didn't realise there were so many people hating on the open source model here, well at least now I know for the future...

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#237

Post by DarylZero »

hutzlibu wrote: post #226
DarylZero wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>marxism as a theory is only a plan It's not a plan. Marx specifically avoided any such planning and explained why. Marxism is a theory about capitalism. It's not a plan at all.

"Marx specifically avoided any such planning and explained why." Where did he say so? Because marxism as I know it, surely is and has a plan. A plan to completely reshape society and economy. Dictatorship of the proletariat ... until the state of real communism is achieved. Can it be, you only heard of the capital, but not the communist Manifest?

Marx did use the phrase commonly translated "dictatorship of the proletariat." But he certainly did not publish a plan for how to achieve it.

He did the exact opposite, he explained why he thought such a plan should not be published.

> Can it be, you only heard of the capital, but not the communist Manifest?

The Communist Manifesto -- which is a statement of the Communist Party rather than Marx, though he wrote it -- includes a political platform, but read the platform and you see, it is mostly just social democratic reforms. At most, it approaches "revolutionary reform" (i.e., reforms meant to make revolution possible). It certainly isn't a description of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." You won't ever find that and cite it.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#238

Post by phkahler »

trixie_ wrote: post #205
phkahler wrote: post #57

The core "problem" stems from software having zero production/replication cost, and we live in a world where nobody is used to funding development. Even software companies are charging rent for what already exists, and using some of that to develop their next version or new product. The zero cost reproduction enables the free collaboration, but doesnt fit our existing ideas around paying for things. I think that noti…

Replace 'rent' with 'support. If a commercial company builds on top of software with a license that says 'use at your own risk' then the buck stops with them. That's why companies buy libraries from other companies that are supported - as in the liability can be passed down the line.

>> Replace 'rent' with 'support.

Not really. Redhat sells support, Microsoft charges rent. This is made even more explicit with SaaS - Software as a Service. Nobody is providing service, they're simply providing access to the capabilities of the software for a fee. That's rent.

Development teams are usually classified as cost center, not any kind of customer service.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#239

Post by sneak »

jollybean wrote: post #125
sneak wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That $20 doesn't go to the dev. It goes to Apple, and, in the USA, requires doxxing yourself to the vendor to get a copy of free-as-in-freedom software. That's unacceptable and repugnant, and it doesn't have any bearing on the volunteer labor. There is such a thing that's free: free software. It was produced with volunteer labor (but doesn't have to be - look at golang!), but the end result/product is free-as-in-free…

You're not grasping the part where there is material work and labour in most parts of the value chain including maintenance, inspection, and distribution of builds. Only 15% of that $20 goes to Apple - while that may be a few points to high, it's not egregious. The rest of that money goes to the person responsible for maintaining the build, which is 'work'. "That's unacceptable and repugnant, " This is a completely n…

Why aren't you complaining about OpenSSH and Ubuntu costing $0, then?

It's not that people are unwilling to do free labor. It's that people, Apple principally among them, are rent-seeking.

Re: “Open source” is not broken

#240

Post by wutbrodo »

gopher_space wrote: post #179
wutbrodo wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This still doesn't make UBI relevant to this discussion. It's already fairly trivial for a talented SWE to make UBI-level income working 10 hours a week by picking up software contracts here and there. Eng already have access to the levels of income that UBI would provide, with plenty of time left over to dedicate to open source, and yet this path is relatively untrodden. Plenty of engineers (myself included) already…

If picking up software contracts here and there is consistent enough for you to count on then it's either already a full time job or the end result of years of networking and experience. UBI would let people devoted to a subject pursue only that.

Sure, I'm not suggesting that it's as easy or as comprehensive as UBI, of which I'm a strong and longtime supporter.

I'm saying that the existence of this weaker alternative is illuminating: there's a non-trivial subset of the population for whom this is an option, including many OSS maintainers, and they don't seem especially jazzed about the idea of making an income that's 10% of what their skills could bring in.

Post reply on HN