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

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Den 2018-05-19 kl. 02:31, skrev 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
> 

Well, there are some that conciders giving to (any) church
as beeing "mislead"... :-)