Why is it unfortunate? Mother nature is not kind.
If an open source maintainer can’t pay their bills, maybe they should spend their time on something that does pay the bills.
Of course this doesn't contradict your point, that is fine for the maintainers to respond to these incentives.
It's funny because this kind of social darwinism or capitalist world view is not the only possible way society could be successfully organized. Yet the (fallacious) appeal to "nature" would suggest that arbitrary monetary value is somehow the most important thing to optimize.
With taxes funding the work, there will be some (aggregate) metric to decide who gets the grants, and some committee to decide said metric and apply it. Which inevitably leads to corruption, both in directly gaming the metric and in greasing the committee wheels to choose the metric that favors certain kind of projects, certain kind of credentials, and/or certain socio-ethno-economic identity markers of the authors.
While the capitalist system is nakedly brutal, at least offers a skilled, determined and lucky person the opportunity to spend a part of their career earning (temporary) financial independence, and then spend it to finance their own projects.
For example, what if you were guaranteed housing, food, and water for working some government job (assigned at random even) a couple of days a week? Most likely people will not want to be janitors and the like so it makes sense to tie social needs to the benefits to offset this, and the food provided does not need to have a lot of choice, as long as it meets nutrition requirements.
Ambitious humans may want more, fine, allow an industry as we do now for people to grow and expand. In fact, competing with the government guaranteeing basic needs puts an easy floor on otherwise exploitative jobs. You have to at least beat the floor to attract any labor.
Maybe first the companies and individuals who use OSS could fund it? It's not like those people are the ones struggling to live in this modern world.
True, if you have a rather low bar of success. Capitalism has produced wealth for average citizens inconceivable only a couple centuries ago. Even the poor in capitalist countries have a higher standard of living than medieval kings.
In so far as they have electrical heating, access to global food products, information technology, modern medical care, sure, plenty of people have a “higher standard of living” versus pre-industrialized societies. That’s a trivial statement. It’s vacuous.
Actually, what’s relevant is that the “poor” in any country have to work long, difficult jobs in order to survive. Some people even die or receive brutal injuries at work. And none of them are being compensated enough, because some people — like our version of medieval kings — don’t have to work at all.
In the context of this discussion, we have situations where people can’t afford to do obvious things that benefit themselves and others. I can’t point my finger and say “capitalism did this”, because the whole engine of human relations (economic, social, cultural) is incredibly vast, and capitalism is such a massive, loaded concept.
But I can sincerely say that somewhere along the line in this engine of human relations that there are very glaring issues that should make us question our sense of humanity.
I am not advocating for some massive, state sponsored rewriting of economic relations or technocratically calculated wealth transfers. The former was empirically a disaster in the 20th century. The latter is purely an academic debate. Nor am I saying that we ought to guilt trip people into donating more to support developers working on free projects. That feels manipulative, although making any community more self-sustaining and caring is obviously good.
I don’t know how fruitful parroting one of coldest takes (capitalism made people richer) can be in light of the lived realities of billions of people, working poor, passionate developers, and everyone who isn’t a 21st century robber baron. We are capable of being kinder and more open-minded.
The truth that society is constantly being reorganized every day. Even the shift from feudalism to “capitalism” happened over hundreds of years. In 300 years, people will look back at our current society and give it a name and analysis, because by then we would be living under a different paradigm. However, until then, future is what we make of it. And we could be more empathetic, and more imaginative.
Isn't it amazing that the wealth generated by capitalism is so enormous that people don't even notice it? Wow!
Also your comment is snarky and uninformative, contrary to the spirit of HN discussion.
This is why communist societies struggle to even provide the basic needs like food and clothes to their citizens while under capitalism citizens face a "tyranny of choice".
1) In current capitalist system, almost all the "slices" are taken by owners and banks. Most workers only get crumbs of the wealth they create.
2) Communism and capitalism are not the only two ways of distributing wealth - there's a huge contiuum between them (like European socialism), and a huge number of paradigms outside of them.
It is quite trivial to become owner today. All you have to do is buy a share, and you can do it from your very phone - the wonders of Capitalism!
> huge contiuum between them (like European socialism)
That explains quite well the why Europe is falling so far behind USA in the 21st century: in the communism - capitalism continuum EU slid a little too much to the left.
> huge number of paradigms outside of them
Please do present them because I keep hearing they exist but nobody is giving any working, real-world tested examples.
In which ways, exactly?
Healthcare in European countries is leagues above American healthcare for ordinary people, and so is social support system. In US, if you run out of money, you're simply left to starve or die of disease.
Hospitals look like in the First World War movies. Every little thing (like toilet paper or soap in the communal bathroom) is missing. You have to buy your own medicine and bring consumables with you... I could go on.
What do you mean about staving and dying of disease in the USA? Who are food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid programs for then?
Where did this myth that European healthcare is some sort of panacea originate?
Maybe from far away, if you squint really hard, through ideology-tinted lenses?
Or some viral study referring to 1990s Sweden?
You want to avoid the public healthcare system like the plague. GPs, dentists, specialists, palliative care… always look for the "private" option first. I scare-quote "private" because the industry is heavily regulated so that even private care must be half-public, in order to operate legally.
The resulting public system is depersonalized, bureaucratic, uncaring, underfunded (inevitable corruption and inefficiency of mind-boggling proportions rather than lack of funds as such). The system survives through heroic efforts of overworked & abused "public" doctors and nurses.
In my home EU country (CZ) the medical staff are either revolting [0] or resolving to good old bribery to restore the market conditions [1].
And CZ is just middle of the pack: most European countries have it worse, according to the Euro Health Consumer Index [2].
[0] https://www-seznamzpravy-cz.translate.goog/clanek/domaci-ziv...
[1] https://www-seznamzpravy-cz.translate.goog/clanek/domaci-ziv...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_Health_Consumer_Index
Just because they perceive it as being free (although we are paying it through the nose in our monthly taxes) while theirs require a job and an insurance (which ours pretty much requires too).
That's just bullcrap. I live in a fairly poor Eastern European country, and public hospitals work fine. The only problem is that you may have to wait up a week to get an appointment (because everyone is using public healthcare), but apart from that I've never had a problem with public healthcare in my life. They diagnoze you, they give you prescription (which you don't have to pay for), and you go home.
Maybe you resent that the buildings don't look like 5 star hotels, but all I care about is that place is clean and sanitized, and does the job.
That's what provides the incentives to produce.
As for "almost all", if you've ever run a business (I have) everyone you deal with has their hand out for a piece. The owner gets what is left over.
No, it's the threat of dying of hunger that provides the incentive to produce.
The fact that almost all slices are taken by owners and banks actually creates incentive to capture as much value as possible regardless of production of it.
> it's the threat of dying of hunger that provides the incentive to produce.
And then you contradict it with:
> creates incentive to capture as much value as possible
Incentive is to capture value, not create it. Workers create value because they have no other choice, but the system encourages capturing of value on a large scale. Rent-seeking and debt-collection is the most profitable activity in capitalism, not creation of value.
Of course they have a choice. They're not slaves.
> Rent-seeking and debt-collection is the most profitable activity in capitalism, not creation of value.
You can't collect wealth that is not created.
Yes, they have a choice to be homeless and/or die of starvation. What a choice.
> You can't collect wealth that is not created.
By that logic, slavery is also a great system because it also creates value.
That is almost completely due to technological progress, not because of capitalism itself.
You know its funny because almost all academic advancement has not been in a capitalist system.
As a counterexample, I'd like to point out the Soviet space program.
"What’s as big as a house, burns 20 liters of fuel every hour, puts out a shit-load of smoke and noise, and cuts an apple into three pieces?
A Soviet machine made to cut apples into four pieces."
Soviets have had a very strong educational system, and a large number of scientists and engineers. Even mathematics, on which all the other science rests, was actively developed by the Soviet. E.g. Andrey Nikolaevich Kolmogorov basically invented the modern probability theory.
To claim that their engineers have done nothing but wait for spies to come back with US knowledge is a little absurd.
I speak from my personal experience of being born and living the first part of my life under the horrors of communism.
Yes, the techonology created by free market countries. The evidence abounds. Your computer, for example.
> As a counterexample, I'd like to point out the Soviet space program.
Yes, the Soviets did have some technological successes. But look around you. How much in your home is communist developed technology? I can't think of any in mine.
Traditional open source licenses and definitions of open source demand that the licenses not differentiate between different use types (personal, commercial, governmental, etc.) Newer licenses are coming up that do differentiate. Traditional open source orgs are often saying that they're source available, not open source.
"Open source" has become synonymous with "free labour" for a lot of firms, and there's a whole class of SaaS projects which amount to gluing together other people's open source work and then supporting it.
I think this was all fine for people during boom time; you built your resume up on GitHub, you got street cred, often your employer paid for you to work on it. But I think it's starting to lose its sheen for some people.
On topic, indeed, shaming is never an option. But still I wish companies would donate to projects - in some countries there are even tax incentives to do so, and the benefit is that they essentially externalise development of a valuable tool for them. Also would earn a lot of good will - as steam does (while not sponsoring money directly).
I think the open source experiment has failed and that we need to embrace moving toward a compensated-commercial source model. Companies are strongly opposed to this because they can't freeload on volunteer work and other companies anymore, but it should be done.
When you have a product with very low marginal cost of production, the market price for the product often tends towards $0. If you have a business that sells software licenses and someone develops a viable alternative (for whatever reason) and starts distributing it for free, you may have a hard time competing against them. And if the free alternative gains enough market share, both parties may find it difficult to pay for continued development. That's just how the market works.
Software is essentially worthless once it exists. Even if many people and many businesses rely on it, there may not be any economic value in maintaining it. If you need to get paid, you may have to do something else for living.
What you're describing is where the interests of commercial users and free contributors diverge. When that doesn't align, commercial users have to tow the line. If they can't make that work, that's not Open Source's fault.
imo it still serves as a way to strengthen resumes of job applicants. Just have a few GH projects with decent "stars" to show you know how to build things. I don't endorse it (because the projects then often get abandoned after employment)—maybe it'd be better to have a "badge" on the GH page showing what the purpose of the project really is.
Maybe I'm old-school but I was always under the impression that a paycheck and recognition are things that are earned, not begged-for or guilt-tripped into.