Hacker News Reader

Comment by defaultname | Hacker News Reader

The argument of big tech "exploiting" or stealing has always rang untrue to me.

If Microsoft took the source code to Nano and made a Nano+ that reads word files or something, closed-source, selling it for big bucks, etc, the value of what they're offering cannot possibly be more than the delta from what is freely and openly available. They didn't make the original any less available, and a user is only possibly going to pay if the features are different enough to merit the cost over the freely available version. Similarly, if Amazon has a product based on an open source product, what they charge can only possibly be for the values that they've brought to it. They haven't stolen anything.

A lot of GPL advocacy seems to be based in sour grapes and it's offputting.

View on HN

>the value of what they're offering cannot possibly be more than the delta from what is freely and openly available. They didn't make the original any less available, and a user is only possibly going to pay if the features are different enough to merit the cost over the freely available version

I think its interesting that you described exactly the big problem the GPL was supposed to solve. The entire intention is to not allow another party to take the work you've done and build a minor increase in value and then piggy backing on all the value you've created.

Now you've removed contributions that could have made the original project better - most of the intention of open source is to make something that others can contribute too.

I understand the intent of the GPL, and the reasoning behind its creation. I'm not arguing about that. It isn't accidental that I am arguing around that point.

I'm talking specifically about the notion of people making money off of open source -- whether BSD, GPL, etc. You cannot possibly make a penny off of what is freely and openly available. It's economic market value is $0.00. It's human value is considerable, but again the market value is $0.

This is lost on all of these sour grapes "wah, they're stealing" arguments.

Thats where the "sour grapes" come from. When another person takes a valuable thing that someone else made and turns it into monetary gain they feel like that is "stealing."

It is less obvious because its not as directly and easily measurable when a direct dollar sign is put on a product. The same feeling happens when big tech builds huge profit machines using something a person made and gave away as a cog without contributing back. Or when AWS takes something like Elasticsearch and hosts it for profit - Elastic co. sure thought they were stealing.

You call it sour grapes and then describe how someone is stealing something of value. Was Elastic's response to AWS also sour grapes?

"You call it sour grapes and then describe how someone is stealing something of value."

This is absurd, and this is just circular. I feel like many of the open source arguments, particularly GPL-based, are predicated on detached bullshit.

When something doesn't have a precise dollar value attached to it, does it not quality as stealing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com