On 10/29/18 3:00 PM, Emery Hemingway wrote:
A fight for economic rights for software workers is a fight for paid/dual
licensing model of open source, and a fight against the entire open
source
establishment. First against the naive/senile GNU theorists, next the
Open
Source Initiative, then IBM and Microsoft (they love open source), and
then
the Chinese multinationals, who have profited most from an environment of
"free as in free".
As someone who worked as a software worker since 1996, I disagree
completely. Using proprietary licensing would not improve our economic
wellbeing at all. Companies will always charge their customers as much
as possible and pay their employees as little as possible. Using
proprietary licenses allow companies to cheat their customers by
charging many times over for the same work, but that doesn't
necessarily benefit their employees.
On the other hand, the vast infrastrucutre of free (as in Freedom) tools
for whatever purpose makes the life of a programmer much easier and
makes us much efficient, which also augments the value of the work we do.
Also, it's interesting and important for the potential democratization
of modern technology that we can all download, use and even change
absolutely top-notch, state of the art software in a lot of areas.
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 10:02:53 PM CET, Florian Cramer wrote:
Today, IBM announced that it will buy up Red Hat for $30 billion.
That value was mostly created by the labor of volunteer, un- or
underpaid developers of the Free/Libre/Open Source software that
makes up Red Hat's products. These people will not see a dime of
IBM’s money. There need to be discussions of economic flaws and
exploitation in the FLOSS development/distribution model.
Most Free/Open Source Software is in fact not created by unpaid
volunteers or even by underpaid workers, but by professional developers
at the companies or organizations who sponsor the projects.
And Red Hat's value is not as much the free software it has used as its
knowledge and infrastructure - which has arguably not been built by
unpaid volunteers.
In general, I'd say, top-professional FOSS tools are not built by
amateurs or volunteers - though maybe by people who like to make them
and who also can get paid by consulting or doing other works related to
that.
But as I said, it's not the licensing regime, but the exploitative
nature of capitalist companies, that's the problem. Going proprietary
wouldn't help a bit. Creating cooperatives that shared the income
without any need for "bosses" or "owners" would be a safer bet.
Best
Carsten
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
