←back to thread

1125 points CrankyBear | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
ironman1478 ◴[] No.45892049[source]
Never work for free. It's a complete market distortion and leads to bad actors taking advantage of you and your work.
replies(6): >>45892207 #>>45892347 #>>45892615 #>>45892682 #>>45893312 #>>45896036 #
1. tombert ◴[] No.45896036[source]
I've grown a bit disillusioned with contributing to Github.

I've said this on here before, but a few months ago I wrote a simple patch for LMAX Disruptor, which was merged in. I like Disruptor, it's a very neat library, and at first I thought it was super cool to have my code merged.

But after a few minutes, I started thinking: I just donated my time to help a for-profit company make more money. LMAX isn't a charity, they're trading company, and I donated my time to improve their software. They wouldn't have merged my code in if they didn't think it had some amount of value, and if they think it has value then they should pay me.

I'm not very upset over this particular example since my change was extremely simple and didn't take much time at all to implement (just adding annotations to interfaces), so I didn't donate a lot of labor in the end, but it still made me think that maybe I shouldn't be contributing to every open source project I use.

replies(2): >>45896765 #>>45898109 #
2. chartered_stack ◴[] No.45896765[source]
I understand the feeling. There is a huge asymmetry between individual contributors and huge profitable companies.

But I think a frame shift that might help is that you're not actually donating your time to LMAX (or whoever). You're instead contributing to make software that you've already benefited from become better. Any open source library represents many multiple developer-years that you've benefited from and are using for free. When you contribute back, you're participating in an exchange that started when you first used their library, not making a one-way donation.

> They wouldn't have merged my code in if they didn't think it had some amount of value, and if they think it has value then they should pay me.

This can easily be flipped: you wouldn't have contributed if their software didn't add value to your life first and so you should pay them to use Disruptor.

Neither framing quite captures what's happening. You're not in an exchange with LMAX but maintaining a commons you're already part of. You wouldn't feel taken advantage of when you reshelve a book properly at a public library so why feel bad about this?

3. izacus ◴[] No.45898109[source]
Now count how many libraries you use in your day to day paid work that are opensource and you didn't have to pay anything for them. If you want to think selfishly about how awful it is to contribute to that body of work, maybe also purge them all from your codebase and contact companies that sell them?
replies(1): >>45902196 #
4. tombert ◴[] No.45902196[source]
Maybe those people shouldn’t be doing free labor to give me free libraries either.
replies(1): >>45907942 #
5. izacus ◴[] No.45907942{3}[source]
Maybe such sociopath ideas should be shunned in any healthy society.