Hi Paul, is it for me to respond? Hmm I'll give it a shot ... On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Paul Boddie <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Saturday 17. December 2016 20.48.24 Charles Cossé wrote: > > > > I'm all about free software, and paying to develop free software is a > step > > in the right direction, but still ... the likelihood that the software > > would even benefit another elevator manufacturer seems unrealistic ... > > This is where we come full circle in a discussion that has largely been > tangential to what the original message was about. First of all, the > freedoms > associated with Free Software go far beyond whether only the producers get > benefits from such transparency: to focus only on that would be a classic > "open source" argument. > Yeah, my original comment was merely that "it's even worse than undermining taxi drivers, Uber is undermining their own Uber drivers". I know, I am one sometimes. And my main point that was not included was about the company giving-away their competitive advantage ... I'd like to see that addressed more than the less significant comment that you quoted. But anyway ... > > Where this returns to the original message is in precisely the matter of > whether people can make a decent living and do so ethically. The second > point > made in that message may seem like a totally separate thing from the > experience of the software developer working on Uber's infrastructure. > Here's > a quote contrasting the benefits of a driver and a developer at Uber: > > "Keep in mind that you don’t get fringe benefits as an independent > contractor. > No paid sick leave or vacation days, no subsidized health insurance or free > coffee or snacks in the company cafeteria. No employer matching > contributions > to your 401(k) savings plan. No educational assistance, group term life > insurance, health savings accounts and so forth. > > Things would be different if you worked for Uber Technologies. You would > receive a 401(k) plan, gym reimbursement, nine paid company holidays, full > medical/dental/visions package and an unlimited vacation policy. You might > even get snacks in Uber’s lunchroom." > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/02/20/ > the-hidden-costs- > of-being-an-uber-driver/ > <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/02/20/the-hidden-costs-of-being-an-uber-driver/> Are you suggesting that developers at Uber are unethical by virtue of contributing to the demise of the taxi industry? If so, I don't think you can go that far and still defend the position ... we all gotta eat. Recall reply #2 re: elevator software put elevator attendants out of business ... by such argument that transition would have been unethical and any subsequent software, free or otherwise, shares the blame ... > > > Just as Uber and other companies do very nicely out of the "gig economy" by > encouraging people to work without normal employment protections and > rights, > emphasising the "flexible" aspects of working as a contractor and the > supposedly greater rewards available, those doing the work appear to end up > working for less, paying for necessities out of their own pocket (like > healthcare and insurance), or maybe even doing without those things > completely. And people working for Uber's competitors experience an > erosion of > their own working conditions as Uber unfairly competes and forces those > competitors to reduce their own expenses. > "unfairly"? It may not be particularly palatable (me included) but change always sucks for somebody. Am I wrong? > > Now, software development for Uber might be done on a regular employment > contract, meaning that people in those jobs have escaped the "gig economy" > (for now), but elsewhere the drive for deregulation and exploitation still > applies. When you note that "paying to develop free software is a step in > the > right direction", it indicates that people still expect Free Software > developers to work for less than others or even for nothing, all because > some > people made a thing out of "open source" being more economically > "efficient", > and thus introducing a rather similar phenomenon of leaning on the workers > to > be cheaper at producing stuff so that businesses can be more profitable. > Well yes, you are preaching to the choir. I think the developer should get as much as possible. I don't like the perception of entitlement to free software at the expense of some developer. My noting that being paid "is a step in the right direction" doesn't indicate that *I* think FOSS developers should work for less. Not at all. > So it turns out that those of us wanting to write Free Software and get > paid > for it actually have more in common with the average Uber driver than one > might first have thought. Carsten's objections are both valid ones after > all. > Yup, exactly what I meant, and what I believe I was saying, at least as far as what you quoted me on. -Charles > > Paul > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > -- Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-cosse> | E-Learning <http://www.asymptopia.org> -- Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-cosse> | E-Learning <http://www.asymptopia.org>
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
