41–50 of 56 posts
Lately, I’ve written several PRs to an otherwise one man show. https://github.com/clarkmcc/ngraph I added prebuilt binaries as part of the CI process for others like simdsim Made a fork of transformers.js to make it work with bun (also some fixes for bun, and another on the way). These things add up.
I don't follow this reasoning. It's not like it's illegal to sell software or whatever. You can create and sell software, libraries, services and whatnot. There must be something else about open source, not fully captured by this article.
This phenomena is surprising for me as well, as it's not observed with other fields. I gave some thought about it, but I still have no idea why is it so wide-spread with programming, but not with other areas. It must be something about zero-cost copy of the software, but I struggle to draw a connection.
> If programmers could somehow satisfy these desires without giving away their work for free, I believe most of the open-source developers would not be open-source developers. It is a means to an end. I don't follow this reasoning. It's not like it's illegal to sell software or whatever. You can create and sell software, libraries, services and whatnot. There must be something else about open source, not fully captur…
> The types of desires that motivate open-source developers are the same as those of creative people in other fields
Yes, that does seem to be true! However, he draws the conclusion exactly backwards: for most creative people, it is the desire to create which is paramount, but the tedious necessity of making a living leads to a lot of aesthetic compromise and time wasted on business overhead, which would all be joyfully jettisoned if there were some other way of meeting one's material needs.
If artists could satisfy that desire to create without having to worry about making money, most artists would probably not bother to charge for their work at all, because charging money introduces a whole layer of accounting and taxes and promotion and (oh my god, just kill me now) process which purely distracts from the goal of making art.
For me, the fascination and satisfaction of creating software came long before any prospect of making a living at it. For most of my career, I also wrote code in my free time, to give away, for the sheer joy of it. It is inherently satisfying to make something beautiful which liberates people from repetitive drudgery.
Running a business is tedious and time-consuming. The amount of money I could make selling the kinds of things I like to work on would be trivial, and the kind of work I would have to do in order to make enough money to justify the side-project would be... well, I already have a job! Why would I want a second, worse job on top? It's not worth the hassle. I'd rather spend my free time contributing to the global commons and feeling good about it.
> If programmers could somehow satisfy these desires without giving away their work for free, I believe most of the open-source developers would not be open-source developers. It is a means to an end. I don't follow this reasoning. It's not like it's illegal to sell software or whatever. You can create and sell software, libraries, services and whatnot. There must be something else about open source, not fully captur…
His previous sentence is telling: > The types of desires that motivate open-source developers are the same as those of creative people in other fields Yes, that does seem to be true! However, he draws the conclusion exactly backwards: for most creative people, it is the desire to create which is paramount, but the tedious necessity of making a living leads to a lot of aesthetic compromise and time wasted on business…
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 the strict definition, capitalism refers to a system that is predominantly driven by ownership of private property. Wikipedia and basically every dictionary should echo this definition. Now the other types of property are: - Personal property: The definitions differ somewhat. In capitalist legal systems it refers to moveable or non-real property as it is more or less subsumed by private property but in general pol…
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.
I hate the old timers who always cite GNU's cover-my-costs tape distribution, as if subsistence manifests a profit motive. The FSF hawks merch, yes, but it was never about making money so much as spreading a wrong-headed gospel.
Just look at all the companies that do open source. Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc... They are all very obviously for profit, if they could sell and become richer, they would, but they still put out open source, on permissive licences no less. It is just that code cannot be leveraged as a competitive advantage, on the contrary, they tend to benefit if people use code they have control over. Why do you think Google…
(Though you do get to deal with people trying to strong arm you into improvements or extra work you don't want to do.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His previous sentence is telling: > The types of desires that motivate open-source developers are the same as those of creative people in other fields Yes, that does seem to be true! However, he draws the conclusion exactly backwards: for most creative people, it is the desire to create which is paramount, but the tedious necessity of making a living leads to a lot of aesthetic compromise and time wasted on business…
There are enough rich singers. I don't really see them releasing their songs for free en-masse.
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…
What makes anything intellectual property really?
(Unless it's literally personal property, such as a diary contents.) Renumeration is one thing, property another.
An important secondary consideration is paying it forward.