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

[Dave Froble]

On 5/19/2018 4:56 AM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> 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"... :-)

:-)  :-)  :-)

Than you Jan-Erik, I didn't want to be the one to open that can of worms ...