You're right that "Sharing and contributing are different things" — and
this exchange highlights a core tension in discussions about Free
Software and economics. Let’s walk through the points you raise and
respond directly in plain text:
"Why would you protest in a family-run company? Either you are with
them, or not with them. Simple."
This might be pragmatic, but it oversimplifies the reality many workers
face. When someone works at a company for nearly a decade, as I did,
and contributes deeply, they may feel a moral stake in the company,
even if they’re not family. Protesting unfairness isn’t necessarily
disloyalty — it can also be a call to improve the workplace.
"Good thing, living in beautiful Norway, with all of the social
services, can't put you really in bad situation."
Norway has a safety net, yes. But dignity, identity, and continuity in
professional life are also human needs — not just having food on the
table. Losing a job unjustly still hurts, especially when it’s about
power, not performance.
"Payments in Free Software are voluntarily."
"Yes and no. If you put yourself in position to receive some
funds... fine... or seek a position where you can get paid..."
That’s a fair nuance. Many people do find paid roles in Free Software —
at Red Hat, Mozilla, or through grants — but the landscape remains
precarious. The point was that in Free Software, power isn't
centralized in families or bosses in the same way.
"Instead of paying family-run companies... pay to individual
workers..."
"Of course, I agree with that..."
That’s encouraging. The idea is not that everyone must
share all income, but that Free Software can become more resilient if
people who benefit from it financially support those doing the work —
through documentation, translations, or bug fixes.
"‘Share’ income? Why don't you share your income. That is why it is
called ‘your’, because it is not for the community."
I do. I’ve paid bonuses to contributors. But I also agree with your
skepticism: nobody should be forced to share. Still, advocating for a
culture of reciprocity in Free Software isn’t about guilt — it’s about
sustainability.
"Rather will pay the scholarship to teenagers in Uganda."
That’s noble. Helping those with fewer opportunities is valuable. The
two aren’t mutually exclusive: you can support global education and
also recognize when fellow developers contribute to the shared digital
infrastructure we all rely on.
"Offer services and products of good value to other people and you
will get money."
True in principle. But some Free Software contributors don’t want to
sell, brand, or commercialize — they just want to build something good.
There should be space for both.
Ultimately, your response shows a constructive realism: we can't expect
income just for being virtuous; we have to create value. But we can
also make room for generosity, especially when the software we're
building serves everyone — including those who can’t pay.
– Ole Kristian Aamot
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
