[galdor]

Why the anger? It may not be a ton of money, but this is a lot more than what the utterly vast majority of companies do for the open source ecosystem they profit from.

The Curl author made the choice to give away his project for free, no one owes him money. So it is nice to see a company giving back, because they did not have to.

[BurningFrog]

This is why:

"The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it"

https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...

[mettamage]

Then this is the least big issue. Let’s all donate to oxfam or a similar org and solve world hunger first.

We’re all horrible for not donating. According to that interpretation

[Viliam1234]

According to the "Copenhagen interpretation of ethics", if you do not donate, it's okay -- most people do not donate, so no one is going to blame you specifically. The normal behavior is never blameworthy.

The problem starts when you actually donate. Now you are in the spotlight, and people are going to judge you publicly for not donating enough, or donating to this instead of that, or maybe just for the fact that you are trying to solve problems by donating instead of promoting a worldwide proletarian revolution. Either way, you are the bad guy now.

(The "Copenhagen interpretation of ethics" is supposed to highlight a failure in our ethical reasoning, but one that most people make completely naturally.)

[r9295]

The anger may stem from the fact that many entites feel like they're owed instant fixes, free support or backwards compatibility etc. from libre/open software. 10k$ doesn't come close to some demands people expect

However, I agree with the fact that it's nice that Bloomberg gives back and it may encourage people in other orgs to push their org to do the same.

[paulryanrogers]

> The Curl author made the choice to give away his project for free, no one owes him money.

Technically true, yet in some cases I'm reminded of folks playing music for tips in public. No one enjoying the music owes the musician, though some of them could record / stream it (perhaps supplemented with commentary) for a profit. Would it be ethical for them to contribute nothing or only pennies?

[jonas21]

If the musician puts up a sign that says "Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this performance for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted", then yes, it would be ethical to record/stream it for profit - they've explicitly told you it's okay. Substituting "software" for "performance", that's what the curl license says.

https://curl.se/docs/copyright.html

[scarface74]

Stream it for a “profit” of $0.06 per stream?

[PopAlongKid]

>Stream it for a “profit” of $0.06 per stream?

You're missing a zero there, it's more like $0.006 per stream

https://edm.com/industry/how-much-each-streaming-platform-pa...

[dhagz]

Ah yes, because /that's/ the important part of the argument.

[scarface74]

> No one enjoying the music owes the musician, though some of them could record / stream it (perhaps supplemented with commentary) for a profit. Would it be ethical for them to contribute nothing or only pennies?

According to the sibling reply, if I gave the musician a penny, that would still be 167x more than he would get if I streamed his music.