Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikl | Hacker News Reader

> The struggle of open source sustainability is the millennium-old struggle of humanity to free itself from slavery, colonization, and exploitation.

This kind of over-dramatisation is totally unwarranted. Unlike slavery, participating in open source is completely voluntary. Unlike colonization, no one is taking your ancestral lands from you. Unlike most kinds of exploitation, the “exploited” can end it any time they want to. No one forces them to continue working on their open source project.

I fully agree that more people should donate to support open source, but this is not a violent or coercive situation.

Money is not the only motivator in the world. Most open source maintainers are (evidently) not doing it for money, but are motivated by altruism, passion, recognition, etc.

View on HN

Or motivation comes from other principles.

I write OSS software because I am pro-privacy. I believe that a democratic (small d) society only comes from freedom of expression and that only comes from not being under constant surveillance by the ad-industry. That only when we can freely congregate and express ourselves can we share and connect over more niche or radical thoughts, and that societal evolution depends on privacy to enable it. Without privacy, I believe that we will homogenise into an ever narrower definition of what is normal and acceptable.

Whether I am right or wrong, I believe that privacy underpins the majority of what we take for granted. That's important enough for me to contribute time/skill and money to several projects... just to ensure these projects and libraries continue to exist.

Motivated by principles rather than money.

> Money is not the only motivator in the world.

Money + law are the media through which the most well-defined & extensible social structures are expressed. In the U.S. (as example) it's nonstandard to work outside of this.

Obviously they're not the same but the struggle of open source does seem to be one face of a much older struggle. How does someone engage in a sustainable, nonexploitative social contract. How do I trade my cool gizmos that have some benefit to society for food, without having to sell my soul or play some game. Etc.

Everyone would like to get paid for doing their hobby, whether it’s music, sports or yes, programming.

But very few have such superlative talent that they can make it as musicians or athletes. Getting paid for programming is comparatively easy, there’s lots of open jobs for all kinds of programming. We’re kinda privileged, really.

When your engage in open source, you’re deliberately offering your labor for free, it’s right there in the license.

So claiming that people are _exploiting_ you when they choose to accept _your offer_ of using the software _gratis_ is complete poppycock.

There are some unhealthy dynamics in open source, but over-dramatising the problem with words like _exploitation_ is disingenuous, not helpful.

"Exploit" has so many connotations. Think of it more like a technical description than a moral one and it fits better here IMHO.

I think it's a bit more complicated than OSS is people that are willing to work for free - and that sort of conception, unfortunately, is why I also think it might not be sustainable.

Social contracts are really the key here. What OSS is offering is something for a per-unit price of 0.00, for everyone, and without expectation of 'proper use'. Unfortunately, what OSS needs in return isn't well-defined even within the open-source community itself. But it certainly does need something. Otherwise it wouldn't be a social contract, i.e. be able to exist for very long.

> ... but are motivated by altruism, passion, recognition, etc.

The real question here is, is that sustainable? No body can survive on just these three, that's the reality here.

Altruism dies down, passion runs out, recognition fades off. Then what? Eventually, rationality kicks in and then you'll have a Sorry letter detailing why some repository that you probably already forgot ever existed now needs a new maintainer.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a completely self-centered person. In fact, I created a few FOSS projects myself, and I also put in my efforts just to make my users happy (well, some of the time), it's all done free of any charge. But to me, altruism is still extremely harmful, and should almost never be relied upon. On the same note, passion and recognition too must be justified to be productive, and then verified to be effective.

Also, let's don't ignore the fact that, even though some founder/maintainers of FOSS projects don't actually need to be reward by money, monetized support is the only realistic help most people welling/capable to contribute. So if the founder/maintainer accepts it, why not?

Open Source has existed for decades at this point, as has many long-running projects, so I think it’s hard to argue that its generally unsustainable.

There are certainly problems, like with behind-the-scenes libraries like OpenSSL attracting too little attention/money/volunteers, and it would be prudent to have discussions about how we can alleviate specific problems.

Huh, I read this more like open source development is a counter proposal to wage labor, colonization and all the rest, and that making it sustainable is a necessary condition to make it an effective one.

Failing to find a solution to open source sustainability would mean going back to an employer/employee relationship (barring some fortunate individuals who'd be the exception to the rule) which in many cases is highly coercive, although indeed not at the same physical level as slavery.

It is not only overdramatic, it is plain wrong. Humanity has found pockets of freedom from hierarchy, seeing as hierarchy is the root cause of slavery, colonization and exploitation. Contrary to popular belief the road to civilization doesn't have to go through the forest of subordination.

It is true that people need money to buy food and pay rent, and open source like many activities is mostly done not for the money but for pleasure. But in a capitalistic world you must earn a minimum of money to survive.

The whole mindset of needing a high retribution because you worked a lot is part of the problem. We need to switch to a needs-based economy. The more something is actually useful, the more resources should be put on it. It's a collective decision to make, and a collective isn't just the sum of its individuals (and individual wants and needs)

I smell blockchains here...

Blockchains don't solve anything. They reinforce the idea that money rules everything, and when money rules everything hierarchies always happen. They sit on top of the most basic tenets of Capitalism and only serve to strengthen it.

Exploitation means voluntary; with the best choice, or a fair choice, not being available. For example, monopsonys in hiring exploit their position, whether they created it or not. You can change career or location to escape them; but many decide to go with being exploited instead of starting over.

The ethical are exploited in many ways. Always have been (since nomad days, anyway.)

Yeah, but altruism, passion, recognition etc. don't put food on the table. Sure, there are many "starving artists" out there who are also motivated by these things, but for software developers, a more lucrative alternative is always readily available, so noone can blame them if they take it.

Since I noticed that this is being downvoted: I didn't mean "starving artist" in a disparaging way, I admire people who are so committed to their passion that they give up a safer (but more boring) career to pursue it - one of them is the creator of my favorite online comic, so I might as well plug her here: https://graphtreon.com/creator/unsounded

Are you suggesting the "starving artists" don't have a more lucrative alternative?

Most anyone with decent technical skill can make money by selling commissions on DeviantArt or similar. It takes effort to make a living that way, but it's an extremely available option. Far more than for software developers, who work on long term projects.

Most any artist can make some quick bucks in a day or so. It's far harder for me as a software developer to prove my level of skill and find somebody willing to pay me for work.

> noone can blame them if they take it

Everyone can blame them, and they probably should. Profit as a primary motivator is destructive both to you and to everyone else - if you know someone that operates this way you owe it to them and to yourself to mock them at least a little.

I didn't mean getting rich, I meant the choice between financial security in a "conventional" job and (full-time) open source work. Of course, you can also combine both to some degree...

n=1 study: I've contributed a few times and not once considered getting even a single cent for it...

Probably you would have contributed more had you received something in return. It needn't be money. Could be even something else.

Humans need a reward to continue doing an action. No reward, no action.

My reward was the missing features I needed... so yeah

Reply on news.ycombinator.com