To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
That should be nothing unusual to businesses, though - the differences between 'legal' and 'socially acceptable' extend far beyond the Open Source communities. Dubious expenses claims by politicians, for example - they might be within the letter of the law, but the public don't find that to be much of an excuse. Or the tax avoidance that several NZ banks are getting beaten up over - legal, but unacceptable to the public.
That should be nothing unusual to businesses, though - the differences between 'legal' and 'socially acceptable' extend far beyond the Open Source communities. Dubious expenses claims by politicians, for example - they might be within the letter of the law, but the public don't find that to be much of an excuse. Or the tax avoidance that several NZ banks are getting beaten up over - legal, but unacceptable to the public. "
Except that Freetards will go into torches-and-pitchforks mode over actions that no reasonable person would consider "unacceptable." Witness all the whining about Google, or Mark Shuttleworth, etc, because they're supposedly "not giving enough back to the community."
The lesson there is: you can spend millions (billions?) of dollars and man-hours on efforts that benefit the "community" - but if you're a business and you don't bend over backwards to appease their every single self-indulgent whim, then be prepared to be labeled as evil.
Nobody is morally forced to contribute back, neither companies nor individuals, having or not having the skill to do it. Those are ideas that you and others are trying to read in what I originally wrote. Not contributing back is just fine, as long as the license allows it.
I'm saying that if you do publish your changes but can't be bothered to push those changes upstream, then upstream developers also have no obligation to go around wasting the time they have to, you know, actually develop, searching for stuff that you could easily bring to their attention.
Implying that all the burden should be on upstream developers, and that it's their interest to incorporate your changes because you don't want to spend 10 minutes writing an email and creating a patch _is_ bad practice. They are not your servants.
I don't follow the cult of Stallman, far from it. If you don't want to contribute, fine. But if you try to push all the work to those that are creating, for free and in their spare time, the stuff you use, that's freeloading.




Member since:
2008-06-02
You've described one of the reasons why so many businesses avoid open source software like the plague. There's formally-defined license terms, any reasonable business person would assume "I've complied with the terms of the license, so everything's A-OK."
But NOOOOOOO, there are these additional unspoken obligations that exist only the minds of the "community." Despite being vague and undefined, hordes of angry GNU/Freetards will rake anyone over the coals if they don't meet those imaginary "obligations." And when you boil it down, most of the "obligations" are along the lines of "give me anything I want for free, and by the way what's taking you so long?"
So you have a community where the collective sense of self-entitlement is only exceeded by its collective anti-commerce mentality. Most businesses take one look, and run in the opposite direction (as they should).