Hacker News Reader

Comment by mbrodersen | Hacker News Reader

The companies are paying exactly what the price tag says it is worth: $0. What is so surprising about that? If you want companies to not “freeload” then change the price tag for companies.

View on HN

For the record, that's exactly what I'm saying. Don't use a license that allows freeloading, because if you do, that's what you'll attract.

I disagree with "exactly what the price tag says it is worth: $0". That's not what the price tag says it's worth. They wouldn't be using it unless it was worth a lot more than $0.

I think you are confusing "marketplace value" (what they are willing to pay for it) and "intrinsic value" (your perception of what the "real" value is). Intrinsic value is in the eye of the beholder. Marketplace value is decided in the market place. I am only talking about marketplace value. Which is also what FOSS developers are complaining about. How the market doesn't put market $ value on their work.

I really dislike the way you phrased that. Are you saying that things don't have value unless you have to pay money for them?

I regret my use of the word "freeload" because of all the baggage it drags with it. I think companies are perfectly legally and ethically fine paying $0 for something that explicitly comes at no cost. But it's also rare that I see a company think about how critical a piece of open source is to their business, and realize that paying in some way (if possible) can be a good way to mitigate business risk. I think most companies don't really consider that risk in the first place.

I completely agree with you. Having worked for a few very large companies, I can tell you that any thinking beyond the crisis of the hour is very rare indeed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com