Hacker News Reader

Comment by sneak | Hacker News Reader

It’s not worthless, but I try to avoid supporting proprietary software companies.

Being selfish isn’t a good look, especially when starting out as free software (Docker Desktop, I’m looking at you).

I even strongly dislike actual free software releases with companies that have proprietary stuff alongside (so-called open core). It means that the people doing it don’t give a shit about software freedoms, otherwise they’d never consider releasing nonfree software. Mattermost is in this category (and further demonstrates their disdain for software freedoms by shipping nonconsensual spyware in their foss stuff and closing PRs that remove it).

It’s really shady to position yourself as an open source company and then release any proprietary software.

View on HN

Do you carry this philosophy through to your professional life? As in, do you only work for companies that produce open source software? If so it's an admirable stance, and I hope you're successful.

I imagine it's tricky (or at least unstable) to earn ones living working only for entirely open source companies, but maybe there are more opportunities out there than I'd realized.

It’s not strictly absolute (I still use and even occasionally buy proprietary software) but yes, generally speaking, I either only work for companies that release free software, or strongly advocate for my clients to build and release only free software. I’ve convinced (or been part of the process that convinced) several projects to release free software that otherwise would not, including some famous ones that have been on the frontpage of HN recently.

I am personally responsible for at least 3-4 startups never making/releasing anything but open source stuff. I advocate for the basic idea of software freedom in all contexts.

Usually “business guys” try to interfere, but it’s almost always from the misguided idea that the code is somehow valuable. People get this weird idea that their source is worth money (it never is). Most companies are valuable because of their ability to execute, not their code (which is rarely reusable outside their org anyway, and even if it is, not in their market).

Think about it: if your code were valuable, how is it that a few people were able to make it from scratch in a few months? It’s obviously your staff who are valuable, not the code (which someone else could also make from scratch for low cost if they needed to, just like you did).

It’s the same misguided emotion that makes people think startup ideas are inherently valuable. It’s the ability to execute, not your so-called “intellectual property” that is where the value is.

That's quite thought provoking!

I don't agree with you on that code isn't valuable – it varies by product complexity, essentiality of the software as part of the business, etc. – but in of itself is the distillation of solved problems, which generally takes years (not months) to work out.

Still, I appreciate you taking the time to break it down, and it's something I'll think about.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I’m at a point in my career where I can be a bit more picky about the jobs I take.

I’m currently looking for a new SWE position and I prefer places that have active open source projects.

I’d take less pay to work at somewhere that maintains and releases free software.

Are you free to work for me... For free? :-)

They clearly meant free as in press, not costless.

I think they were conflating both notions. But alas...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com