[quesera]

> What's the logic?

Some of us like making things, and are happy to share our excess production with the world.

Like any other good work, it does not require acknowledgement or reciprocation, and the benefits are not part of a zero-sum economy where the giver is harmed by any action of the receiver.

You're on record as being vehemently anti-OSS. Why does it offend you so much that other people prioritize forms of compensation differently than you do?

[carlosjobim]

> You're on record as being vehemently anti-OSS.

That's true, I'm the chief anti-OSS crusader on HN and online. I'll give it a rest after this thread, to breathe and give all a chance to recover strength.

> Some of us like making things, and are happy to share our excess production with the world.

Selling those things is still sharing with the world. Most paid software is cheap to purchase.

If FOSS was an eco system where end users had the common(?) courtesy to donate just a little bit to at least one of the projects they use, then I'd have nothing to say. But whenever I use any FOSS code and donate, I usually find myself alone with two or three other people who have donated.

Unlike most other professions, programming is something most people start with as a hobby in young years. So maybe they don't value their own hard work and effort, even though they've matured past the young hobbyist phase? And then they get misguided by open source activists to labour for free.

A young artist who publishes their songs online for free in the hopes of becoming famous, will still retain copyright on those works. No record label can come around and start selling those songs without even letting the artist know. Much less stealing and selling the songs of a well-established artist if he/she decides to release music for free.

I just don't like free loading, and I don't like enablers either.

[quesera]

Selling a thing comes with greater obligations than giving it away.

I am unwilling to accept those obligations, in most cases.

I am, however, perfectly happy to share some of the work that I do back into an ecosystem which I have benefited from. I also volunteer for organizations I care about, and I pick up litter in public parks. :)

I do not believe that I am being exploited. The Internet is and always has been built on open source -- and as bad as the Internet is, it would be worse if it didn't exist or if it was a proprietary network.

I think you're taking a real problem (funding of valuable work) and exploding it into an argument against open source, which just doesn't follow for me.

I do 100% support finding a way to monetarily compensate people who do valuable work and contribute it to the world. Theoretically. Practically, it gets messy real quickly and I don't see a good broad solution.

[carlosjobim]

> I am unwilling to accept those obligations, in most cases.

This is the argument I keep hearing every time a discussion about open source boils down, and I think it is wrong. Because in truth there is no big commitment if you sell some software for $10 or $20. In worst case if it doesn't work for the customer, you give a refund. When you go out to buy a sandwich or a couple of beers for $10, do you think they are worried about any commitment? No, it's "Here you go, enjoy!". You won't have any more obligations than you are willing to take on, just like open source.

> I also volunteer for organizations I care about, and I pick up litter in public parks.

Would you pick up litter that a mega-corp is dumping in the woods, while they keep dumping more and laughing at you?

[quesera]

> there is no big commitment if you sell some software for $10 or $20

This ends up not being true. It creates headaches and contracts both explicit and implied. It creates legal requirements and a for-consideration nexus that is far too complicated to contemplate at this level. Also moral obligation, tax liability, _customers_ to serve. No thank you.

Money changes everything. I don't need that overhead in my life. I've done it before (accepting donations only), and I won't do it again.

> Would you pick up litter that a mega-corp is dumping

If a megacorp was diminishing my enjoyment of the park by their litter, then yes sure, if it was of a magnitude that I could solve myself.

I'd also encourage the application of whatever legal and financial penalties might be available -- just like conflicting use of open source. If a license is violated, then pursue for damages. If the license allows the use in question (e.g. BSD, MIT), then that's a decision made by the licensor.

[carlosjobim]

What is the big headache? I'm curious to know, because I can't see it. I started my first business at a very young age, and had a lot of people around me in my life who tore up heaven and earth, really went ballistic, because in their world you work for somebody else - preferably the government - and receive a salary and that's it. To try to start a small business was one of the worst sins, and surely the IRS and competitors and employees would sue me out of existence just for having a business.

I still don't know what it was (is) with these people? Maybe a religious worshipping of the government and a fear of the IRS that are greater than the fear of God? Thinking that if you make a slight mistake, you'll be imprisoned for life. That was the impression they give. And when developers talk about the big headache of charging for a piece of software, I can't help but thin back to that.

The truth is – and you know it also – that if you sell software for $10, $20 or even $100, there is no contract nor much headache. You can give the money back to a customer who isn't satisfied and that's it. You can have your customer service as minimal as you prefer. You can also legally earn quite a lot of money on it as a side business before having to think about taxes or incorporation. And when that day comes, well congratulations, now you're supporting yourself as an independent developer!

The headache is only in your head.

[crusty]

You seem to have a very fixed view of the world, including either an inability or strong reluctance to accept the validity of incentivizing interests that differ from your own. What you find easily acceptable may not be for another. And as 'cheap' is relative, what's cheap for you isn't universally so.

I was once on a volunteer project, clearing destroyed buildings after a disaster. One day after work, the entire group was going over the work all the sub-groups had done that day, and an upper-middle-aged man, who had been out clearing the crumbled remnants of a schoolhouse, was indignant because of the perceived lack of respect shown by the head of the school, who showed up to see what was being done but had failed to personally thank the group (him really) for their efforts. Another guy stood up and countered him that they didn't decide to volunteer so that they could collect thank yous and bask in signs of appreciation - that they didn't know how much our how little their efforts meant at the moment to the people they were doing it for - clearing away the pieces of a fallen building, perhaps one that took lives with it, is just completing the process of destruction after all, so seeing it being done might stir feelings of revisiting the horrors of the devastation. That was the end of the 'thank you' crap.

All that's to say, not everyone values their labor the same way you do or feels the need for it to be recognized as you do. Not everyone has the same relationship with money (as a concept and reality) as you do. These are not things of right and wrong.

I doubt there would be many people who would claim the open source ecosystem is perfect, but such is a barely managed, libre system. You don't have to make demands of it; if you are unable to embrace it, you are also completely free to not.