[Info-vax] Ada on VMS, was: Re: Free Pascal for VMS ?

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 5/17/2018 12:16 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 5/16/2018 7:35 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 5/16/2018 4:07 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2018 12:14 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2018 10:57 PM, Paul Sture wrote:
>>>>> <https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2017/06/28/elementaryos_ubuntu_unity_replacement/#c_3219968> 
>>>>>
>>>>>      "Well as the author of a very popular open source file system I
>>>>>      fully concur with that attitude. People and companies just won't  pay
>>>>>      and will bend over backwards not to pay,
>>>>>
>>>>>      I have not received anything for the open source I wrote for the
>>>>>      last 8 years. Nothing unless you count possibly 3 or 4 donations of
>>>>>      less than $25 in 8 years.
>>
>>>>>      That's millions of installations. Bitter? You bet. I stopped
>>>>>      developing it in 2014.
>>
>>>> He chose to release some code as open source.
>>>>
>>>> Very few people chose to donate money to him.
>>>>
>>>> He chose not to offer support for free.
>>>>
>>>> He chose to stop working on the open source code.
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure that I see the problem.
>>>>
>>>> He made his choices.
>>>>
>>>> Was he mislead in any way?
>>
>>> Well, yes, sort of.
>>>
>>> The entire concept of "free open source" is a problem.
>>>
>>> TANSTAAFL
>>>
>>> Writing code is work.  Work is usually something one does for some
>>> form of compensation.  Don't see too many people with a job where they
>>> do not get paid.  (Well, unless you're a prisoner in a Chinese prison.)
>>>
>>> Those who buy into the concept of free software have made a mistake.
>>> One could claim that they were "mislead".
>>
>> Mislead how by who?
> 
> Whoever or whatever convinced someone to perform some work for no 
> compensation.  It just doesn't make sense, unless, someone is looking 
> for some ego satisfaction, and even then, that is a type of compensation.

I believe that most open source / freeware contributors
decided themselves to do so without anyone
convincing them.

>> If someone promised them that they would make truckloads
>> of money and they did not then they were mislead.
>>
>> But if they understood that it was unlikely that they
>> would ever make lots of money from it then, then I can
>> not see them as being mislead.
>>
>> People have been writing code for DECUS tapes,
>> writing code snippets to post to comp.os.vms/INFO-VAX
>> many years before the open source concept got defined.
> 
> The question when looking at DECUS, the freeware disks, and such, is how 
> much of that was something someone needed, produced, and then decided to 
> submit it for others to use, should they have a need for the software? 
> I've submitted a few things.  I didn't write them to submit, I wrote 
> them because I needed them.

That happens as well.

But not all new open source are release of existing stuff.

>> And the last couple of decades people have written code
>> with a formal open source license.
>>
>> And it was rather clear (in my opinion) that they would
>> never get paid for that.
>>
>> But they chose to do it anyway.
> 
> Which makes no sense ....

There are other reasons than just money to do something.

Possible motivation for non-paid open source contributors:
* wanting to help other by providing some useful software
* just for fun (aka a relaxing hobby)
* learning new technology / keep uptodate with technology not used at work
* wanting to show the world how good they are (aka ego)
* having a sense of "I benefit from open source so I should
   contribute myself"

There are probably other.

>> It is fair enough if they want to stop doing that and
>> focus on paid work.
>>
>> But I can not see them as being mislead.
> 
> Let me ask it this way.  Perhaps you've heard of cults, where people are 
> required to turn over to the cult everything they have?  Would you call 
> that being mislead?  I sure would, that is, when I'm not muttering "weak 
> minded fools".

I think that is a rather bad analogy.

Most non-paid open source contributors have a job (or
are studying) as their main occupation and are developing
open source in their spare time.

So it seems to be a much better analogy to compare
open source contribution to someone has a job and take
care of their family but does give to their church or
a charity.

And that is what I would consider quite normal. And I
don't see a problem with it. And I don't see them as
having been "mislead".

Arne