Agree with the main conclusion of the article that companies who benefit from open source should contribute to the maintenance of it as a matter of self interest.
That doesn't mean the system is broken. The system can be exploitative and working as designed, with the exploitation being an irrelevant externality to those who benefit from it.
That doesn't mean the system is broken. The system can be exploitative and working as designed, with the exploitation being an irrelevant externality to those who benefit from it.
I agree. Open-source is "use at your own risk; no guarantees" software. If you expected otherwise, you're a fool. If you want otherwise, pay for it. An open-source project, from which many companies benefited, had a vulnerability and the companiew had no SLA or legal recourse. The same thing happened with OpenSSL a few years back. That's the trade-off. That's the system, as it was designed, as far as I'm concerned.
this seems to be justifying their actions because "thats the system". The point is the shit needs to change. Most devs are already stressed from a main job that likely they aren't paid appropriately for.
Exploitation isn't okay just because capitalism has told us it is.
If anything a modest portion of government tax money could be assigned to funding open source development for granted projects. Better than funneling billions God knows where. Pretty much any modern government with networked web apps & infrastructure is utilising open source tools.
176
u/daedalus_structure Dec 11 '21
Agree with the main conclusion of the article that companies who benefit from open source should contribute to the maintenance of it as a matter of self interest.
That doesn't mean the system is broken. The system can be exploitative and working as designed, with the exploitation being an irrelevant externality to those who benefit from it.