Hacker News Reader

This is the most confusing comment I've seen on HN in years.

> I wish the so called open source projects were more inclusive.

- What barrier is there currently to open source projects. Take the code, do whatever you want with it.

- What is the difference between an open source project and a "so-called open source" project. Is the source available freely available? Then its open source. It is a gift!

> Many people would love to work on these projects, but are unable to because they need to have a paid employment to pay bills and feed family.

Why is that anyone else's problem? Billions of people don't get to do exactly what they want to do. Many (most?) open source contributors work on the open source in their spare time. "Many people would love to do X, but are unable to because Y". You can fill in those blanks for anything.

> Companies who use such software are essentially getting labour without paying for it. We need to think about royalty system that will be reimbursing people working on those projects...

They aren't paying for it because the person who wrote it didn't want them to pay for it. You are trying to control the explicit desires of the person who created and shared the software.

> What barrier is there currently to open source projects. Take the code, do whatever you want with it.

There is a barrier to participate in development of those projects. Developers are expected to work for free and not every developer can afford to do it, so these projects are dominated by people from privileged backgrounds.

> What is the difference between an open source project and a "so-called open source" project. Is the source available freely available? Then its open source. It is a gift!

I am not sure why do you mean by this question.

> Billions of people don't get to do exactly what they want to do. Many (most?) open source contributors work on the open source in their spare time.

The problem is that "Open Source" is a source of free R&D for companies who don't have to pay salaries and taxes and developers are expected to give up their time for free. Big companies are promoting this, because it saves them money in the long run at the expense of developers. This is the same situation as with unpaid internships. If a company offers an unpaid internships, only people from privileged backgrounds can afford that (e.g. parents pay their bills) and people from poor background are missing out because they need to find a paid work often in completely different sector. That's why in many countries (for example in the UK) unpaid internships are illegal to level the playing field and to reduce the social divide.

> They aren't paying for it because the person who wrote it didn't want them to pay for it.

As I wrote above, in many places it is illegal. Everyone should be paid for their work even if they are privileged and don't want money (then they can send it to charity).

You severely lack any historical context about open source.

You are speaking like it was started by big companies to get free labor.

It was literally the opposite. It was started by people who wanted to share and have the source code so they could make changes and not be beholden to large companies.

You are literally complaining that about GIFTs! It is a gift that you can get the source code. You can use it, change it, learn from it. You are welcome!

You also keep associating open source to unpaid forced labor. What about hobbies?

Please tell me anywhere in the world where it is illegal to give away something I created.

It’s hard for me to believe you are not trolling. If you are not, I don’t know how to help you.

I know how this started and my idea does not change the roots of the movement. Software will be free for individuals. The problem is that big corporations essentially stole the movement and spun it to get free labour. You can also give free labour to another individual - for example you can mow your elderly neighbour's lawn, but in my country giving free labour to a corporation is illegal. Please don't mix the two things. One is noble the other is exploitative!

> but in my country giving free labour to a corporation is illegal.

It is not illegal for me to work on a project then release it for free and a company to use it.

It’s not exploitative. It was my decision.

That's what used to be called a troll comment. These days, the term "SJW" is more commonly used.

How do you propose open source projects get the revenue to offer a royalty program?

Also, in what countries is volunteering for free illegal?

Well there’s https://gitcoin.co/

Not royalties, but dues at least.

A DAO structure would work well, but not many people seem to see it as viable.

Royalties should be based on % of revenue generated by a product where particular software is being used and distributed among contributors. You are conflating volunteering with internship. If a company recruits volunteers as software developers, this is a disguised internship and they'll get themselves liable. This is illegal in the UK.

and if the open source project generates no revenue?

Like, if Y is controlled by the Y foundation which is in part funded by Z company, Y foundation isnt really getting a direct revenue stream from the software - thats the thing about open source software, you dont have a say in how its used, and you cannot force payment.

I think your read of the law on what is or isnt an internship is a wee bit of a hot take, but IANAL, and certainly not a UK Labor Lawyer.

> and if the open source project generates no revenue?

For example 0.1% of 0 is 0 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage)

Whoever gets the revenue from the software should be paying.

Regarding any constructs with foundations and other tax avoidance schemes, that's probably another topic.

So, basically, you're saying that if you make money from the software, you should be required to pay money to the copyright holders (aka, the developers).

At that point, what sets aside open source software from any other kind of software?

There is a time and place for this BS, this isn't one of those.

Middle class privilege is real.