> "However, my more charitable interpretation of the original message would be along the lines of: "Open source seems to work, since you can post this criticism while utilizing a lot of open source technologies.""
The blog title is ""Open Source" is not broken" [edit I think the title changed since first reading];
> "however at the same time that implies that surely it's possible to somehow ingrain tipping or similar monetary actions into a culture to the point where it's not viewed as something outrageous by the denizens of said culture."
I don't find tipping outrageous, rather annoying in that it turns a simple transaction (food for money) into a one-way unclear social negotiation. There's no fixed amount of tip which means it varies in different places, which means it's possible to be rude without meaning to be rude - in a way that has a knock on effect on the waiter's lifestyle - and a decision weighing up how much is fair, without being so much it's uncomfortable to pay or so little it risks insult. (See also the Monty Python Life of Brian scene "won't haggle").
> "Are we incapable as humanity on a large scale to give money willingly to others, when we benefit from their work?"
Isn't that what "buying" is? A huge part of the world is devoted to this, paying money to others to benefit from their work. The question here is, if those others give their work for free, why then do they expect money and try to guilt people into giving them money, when there is a system whereby they could have asked for money in the first place?
> "Why not? If i wasn't ... X, Y, Z..."
Because if you aren't compelled to, you have plenty of other things to spend money on instead, apparently.
> "In short: It feels like open source developers should be paid, regardless of everything else. [...] i don't think open source has a future that's all that bright"
If nobody willingly wants to pay for a thing, then the author deserves to get paid for it? Why?
No, buying is a financial transaction, without which you will not acquire the goods that you're after. With open source, you'll just take the code, benefit from it (like large corpos that make millions through it), but aren't obligated to give any of that money to the authors.
While also not stealing, to me that sounds like exploitation on some level - the authors oftentimes seeing that as the status quo and being okay with it doesn't make it any less exploitative in my eyes.
> If nobody willingly wants to pay for a thing, then the author deserves to get paid for it? Why?
Because they're making the world a better place with the code that they create. If nobody wants to acknowledge that or willingly give them money for it (recognition also would be nice, but you can't eat recognition), then in my eyes the problem lies with society.
In a better society, people who do the work would be taken care of.
The blog title is ""Open Source" is not broken" [edit I think the title changed since first reading];
> "however at the same time that implies that surely it's possible to somehow ingrain tipping or similar monetary actions into a culture to the point where it's not viewed as something outrageous by the denizens of said culture."
I don't find tipping outrageous, rather annoying in that it turns a simple transaction (food for money) into a one-way unclear social negotiation. There's no fixed amount of tip which means it varies in different places, which means it's possible to be rude without meaning to be rude - in a way that has a knock on effect on the waiter's lifestyle - and a decision weighing up how much is fair, without being so much it's uncomfortable to pay or so little it risks insult. (See also the Monty Python Life of Brian scene "won't haggle").
> "Are we incapable as humanity on a large scale to give money willingly to others, when we benefit from their work?"
Isn't that what "buying" is? A huge part of the world is devoted to this, paying money to others to benefit from their work. The question here is, if those others give their work for free, why then do they expect money and try to guilt people into giving them money, when there is a system whereby they could have asked for money in the first place?
> "Why not? If i wasn't ... X, Y, Z..."
Because if you aren't compelled to, you have plenty of other things to spend money on instead, apparently.
> "In short: It feels like open source developers should be paid, regardless of everything else. [...] i don't think open source has a future that's all that bright"
If nobody willingly wants to pay for a thing, then the author deserves to get paid for it? Why?