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

The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

trstringer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 413 posts

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#361

Post by crotchfire »

ranting-moth wrote: post #13

The feeling of entitlement people have around open source is unsustainable. If someone releases code then that's it. You have it. Do what you want with it (within it's licence). Be thankful. Unless that guy specifically says he's going to maintain it for free you are entitled to exactly absolutely nothing more you ungrateful little git. If you add this code to your project, you should fix and share any problems you e…

> you should fix and share any problems you encounter as a token of gratitude.

The whole point of the GPL is to change "should" into "must" for these fixes. That makes it a two-way street.

The entitlement and ranting is a direct consequence of the recent GPL-hating campaign.

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#362

Post by zackmorris »

bawolff wrote: post #322
zackmorris wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The feeling of entitlement people have around open source is unsustainable. Do you have standards? It doesn't sound like you do. People with healthy boundaries set standards for themselves as far as what they give to others and what treatment they accept in return. I think the fallacy in your argument is that you're blaming contributors for noticing that they aren't being compensated for the work they've done, rather…

I dont think that is what the person you were replying to is saying. > I think the fallacy in your argument is that you're blaming contributors for noticing that they aren't being compensated for the work they've done, rather than blaming others for using that work without giving anything in return. Is anyone being forced to work on open source software? Unlike low wage jobs, where you could be forced in order to pay…

Edit 2: you're right, I read the parent comment backwards. They're saying that people using open source code have no right to place demands on contributors. This is a teachable moment for me, so I'll leave my thought process below, even though it doesn't apply now.

--

If I follow your logic, then you're saying that there's no economic incentive to work on open source software, since it's not compensated financially. Which seems to create a paradox:

A) Capitalism doesn't apply to open source software because there's no exchange of capital for labor

B) Capitalism applies to open source software because it generates billions of dollars of revenue for people and corporations

It sounds like the only rational act under capitalism is to not work on open source software, since the work is not compensated.

Meaning that any solution we come up with will act outside of capitalism.

Can you present a solution that works within capitalism to fund open source software?

Edit: I forgot to mention that the primary power of organized labor is to withhold labor until compensated. For open source, that might look like deciding as programmers to withhold all of our contributions until we solve this. Since we won't do that, we're all scabs supporting the status quo.

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#363

Post by zackmorris »

38 wrote: post #315
zackmorris wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The feeling of entitlement people have around open source is unsustainable. Do you have standards? It doesn't sound like you do. People with healthy boundaries set standards for themselves as far as what they give to others and what treatment they accept in return. I think the fallacy in your argument is that you're blaming contributors for noticing that they aren't being compensated for the work they've done, rather…

> I think the fallacy in your argument is that you're blaming contributors for noticing that they aren't being compensated for the work they've done, rather than blaming others for using that work That's the exact opposite of what they are doing. They are blaming the users for expecting more than they should. They should expect nothing more than literally just the current version of the code, as is.

Thank you, you're right, I read the parent comment backwards.

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#364

Post by eschneider »

chlorion wrote: post #350
eschneider wrote: post #6

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's perfectly ok to charge folks for software and if you're OSS project isn't motivating you like it used to, it's perfectly ok to charge users for support/updates/bugfixes.

This is really important. A lot of people think open source is about not paying for software, even some open source devs think this. You are allowed to sell your software even if its GPL'd or whatever. You are not obligated to give the source away for free, you can charge people for the source and for binaries, you just have to provide the source when someone does buy it. I would like to see more people try this out.…

I expect quite a few people do this, or a variation on this.

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#365

Post by Nevermark »

friend_and_foe wrote: post #357
ranting-moth wrote: post #13

The feeling of entitlement people have around open source is unsustainable. If someone releases code then that's it. You have it. Do what you want with it (within it's licence). Be thankful. Unless that guy specifically says he's going to maintain it for free you are entitled to exactly absolutely nothing more you ungrateful little git. If you add this code to your project, you should fix and share any problems you e…

This is right, but maintainers themselves often forget. They don't enforce this. Their little thing became very important and they became a rock star, so they carry the world on their shoulders. They respond to feature requests that are out of scope originally. They let any and every PR in. Maintainers often manage to do things with their project that turn them into bahemoths and support large industry and find thems…

> More maintainers need to take the "no guarantee of fitness for purpose" part of their license more seriously.

I get this, as a very bottom line. But a lot of great projects are great because the developers consciously want people to use and depend on their work.

Their is a living changing informal social bargain, unique to each project, along with licensing, economic and other concerns.

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#366

Post by andrewjl »

teddyh wrote: post #336
growse wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and I are reading "SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION." very differently.

At best, that only covers bug fixes. And, as I said, bug fixes are usually implied to be available in future releases.

> At best, that only covers bug fixes. And, as I said, bug fixes are usually implied to be available in future releases

Can you explain how you got to that interpretation from that phrasing?

> SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

And how is future development and / or support not covered under servicing of that clause?

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#367

Post by teddyh »

simbolit wrote: post #354
teddyh wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t need a disclaimer for something which nobody reasonably expects. Although an “available today only” notice might be useful, since people might reasonably expect a lemonade stand to be available the next day. Regarding examples, basically any software project web site which talks about the project as an ongoing thing, gives links to where “new releases” will be available. Stuff like that. All that implies th…

Let's look at one of my favorite open source projects: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock Does gorhill need a disclaimer, as you propose? If so, please tell me specifically, where you are reading any "implied support, security bugfixes, and future development". I am not purposefully complicated, I just feel your "implied" is doing a lot of work, and I want to see what that really means. I don't see the implication, bu…

Firstly, uBlock doesn’t really talk about its own updates, since all the frequent updates it needs are provided by its filter lists. It’s basically an app store, a little bit like F-Droid. And you’re right, I can find no explicit language that either states or implies any of the things i listed.

But think of it this way. There is a prominent link to their list of releases, https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases>. From what I can tell, the releases vary from a few days apart to maybe a month apart, with the most recent release being yesterday. What would you think if, say, six months from now, there still wasn’t a new release? No bugs fixed? And, when asked about the absence of these things, if the developer’s answer would be “You’re whiny and entitled, I have no legal obligation to do anything, read the license LOL.”? I mean, he’d be technically correct, it would be legal for him to do this. But would it be OK? What I am arguing is that it would not be OK, and that users do have legitimate reasonable expectations of any project that presents itself as being active; i.e. fixing bugs, security holes, and implementing new features. Users are not “entitled” when expecting these things.

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#368

Post by teddyh »

andrewjl wrote: post #366
teddyh wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At best, that only covers bug fixes. And, as I said, bug fixes are usually implied to be available in future releases.

> At best, that only covers bug fixes. And, as I said, bug fixes are usually implied to be available in future releases Can you explain how you got to that interpretation from that phrasing? > SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. And how is future development and / or support not covered under servicing of that clause?

Fixing defects is a different activity from support and future development, no?

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#369

Post by teddyh »

sublimefire wrote: post #333
teddyh wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A maintainer position for a software project is like any position or role, in say, a charity. You aren’t technically forced to do the work, but the charity announces publicly (on its web site, for instance) that the work will be done, and people expect it to be done. If you do not feel up to doing it anymore, you owe it to other people (who expect the work to be done) to announce your retirement and hand the position…

This is ridiculous because there is no legal or moral obligation from the creator to say anything except maybe adding the license. You as a user can use the given software and probably modify yourself at will due to the permissive license which is the main advantage of OSS. When I get stuff from the charity I do not expect them to provide a return policy and customer service, your analogy is moronic because the thing…

To use any software in these modern times, it’s not enough to simply get a snapshot and use that forever. That time has long gone. Users need updates for whenever the inevitable incompatibilities arise, and since switching to some other software is a lot of work, users need to be able to depend on regular, timely updates. Indeed, many people choose what software they use solely on that basis. Therefore, any software project which presents itself as usable is implying that the project will provide these things.

(This is a bit like how a stable economy depends on there being a crucial threshold number of long-term, high-trust relationships. You cannot have a functioning economy when everybody is always backstabbing everybody else. Similarly, you arguably cannot have a functioning Open Source ecosystem if everybody is just throwing code over the wall all the time.)

> The problem is that the barrier to use any software is so low that it attracts people who have no clue and demand support.

I think this phenomenon is caused by:

1. Some users being a bit whiny and entitled, just like some people are rude to waiters. Some have been taught and brought up to behave this way, and others have just gotten into bad habits.

2. Many developers being overly defensive when presented with legitimate complaints from users. This is just human nature, harmful as it may be.

3. Due to 2., users exaggerate and act rudely when reporting complaints, because they expect pushback from developers. This then exacerbates 2. again, leading to a vicious cycle.

Some developers who are burnt out by 1., and are not realizing what is going on, are, as a way of psychological self-defense, adopting an attitude of “I don’t care about you users, you’ll get nothing and you’ll ******* like it.” This then necessitates the same developers to argue that all users who expect anything are merely “entitled”, because if any user’s expectations would be reasonable, then the developer’s attitude would be unwarranted, and the developers feel that they need that attitude for their own well-being.

None of this is new; the old jargon word “lusers” was frequently used in ages past with contempt and disdain for users.

Re: The Lack of Compensation in Open Source Software Is Unsustainable

#370

Post by somethingor »

teddyh wrote: post #367
simbolit wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's look at one of my favorite open source projects: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock Does gorhill need a disclaimer, as you propose? If so, please tell me specifically, where you are reading any "implied support, security bugfixes, and future development". I am not purposefully complicated, I just feel your "implied" is doing a lot of work, and I want to see what that really means. I don't see the implication, bu…

Firstly, uBlock doesn’t really talk about its own updates, since all the frequent updates it needs are provided by its filter lists. It’s basically an app store, a little bit like F-Droid. And you’re right, I can find no explicit language that either states or implies any of the things i listed. But think of it this way. There is a prominent link to their list of releases, https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases >…

> And, when asked

Just so I understand, what would be the question here?

Post reply on HN