[jefftk]

I did read that link before commenting, and there's nothing in there about users damaging Daniel's reputation after he declines to do free work for them?

> there'll be always someone who will accept exposure as a valid form of payment either being very rich or being desperate or not caring

Why is this, especially in the cases of being rich or not caring about compensation, a problem? I have done a lot of Open Source work for free, and a lot of Open Source work while paid by companies, and I don't feel like I've been exploited or otherwise mistreated in either case.

[bayindirh]

It's not a problem, it's just a fact. I personally don't care about the compensation either, but not everyone is motivated the same about developing software.

On the other hand, I believe requesting somebody's time for free is unethical, esp. if you are a company and wanting something from other parties at a certain quality at a certain time.

Somebody using your code and getting business done with it might not feel exploitative, and it might be true for you, and me. However, if they demand support from you, in X hours, at Y quality, and expecting you to "stop, drop and roll" for them, now that's exploitative. This is what I'm trying to say.

Many young people, who happened to write good code and their good code picked up by corporations are exploited like that. Not all of them know the better or have the gravitas to tell "go fix yourself", and this allows exploitation to continue.

I'm very grateful for people who write this code to enable this massive and wonderful ecosystem. I try to help them by filing high quality bug reports, submitting patches if I can and monetarily support a couple of them. I'm not against open source, but prefer Free Software more, because it's fairer towards the developers and the users. I don't like companies running away with someone's effort and come back and low-key threaten for free work.

Also, again talking about Microsoft, there's the WinGet/AppGet saga, which is ugly in its own right.

[jefftk]

> Not all of them know the better or have the gravitas to tell "go fix yourself", and this allows exploitation to continue.

Agreed there, but then this is what I think we should be arguing for. Not "companies are wrong to use software without paying" but "companies are wrong to demand work from (and especially to make threats to) volunteers" and "volunteer maintainers should be well supported by the community (and anticipate such) when they decline to extend software".

[bayindirh]

> Agreed there, but then this is what I think we should be arguing for.

I mean, the original comment (by me) you replied to is intended to portray a scenario where the company threatens the developer for not fixing a bug which affects the company in short notice, for free.

Or, did I word it wrong?

[jefftk]

Possibly I read more into your comment than you were trying to say, but I interpreted you as saying "and so we should shame companies for not paying" as opposed to "and so we should shame companies for threatening"?

[bayindirh]

You dove a little deeper than I intended. In short:

    - Companies use Free or Open Source Software: That's great.
    - Companies give feedback (bug reports, RFCs, developer time etc.) to said projects: That's awesome.
    - Companies wait for the developer and have no hard feelings when their requests are done for free, or rejected because it doesn't fit developer's vision: That's the way it should be.
    - Companies pressure/threaten developer for features, timeline, requests and expect the developer to do as they say for free: Hell no!.

If they see eye to eye and let the developer be, it can be done for free. If they try to treat said developer as their employer who works for internet cookie points, now we have a problem.

[jefftk]

Sorry, I think I just fully agree with you and was reading stuff into your comment you weren't saying!