I think the downvotes have more to do with the comments being quite like an ad hominem attack.
elbarto777
joined 2 years ago
You are both right.
Thats where the problem lies it is assumed that open source software has be free.
But the article is not talking about this scenario. They're specifically talking about open source software that's also free software:
Your favorite apps run on code maintained by exhausted volunteers.
So it's perfectly fine for some users to expect the software to be free.
The real problem is that some project owners have a sense of duty to maintain their creations no matter what, leading to burnout, which is the point of the article. The article also details ways to fix it. Some of those involve the users being proactive (e.g. taking the initiative to donate consistently), but ultimately it's up to the owner to take some action. Like I mentioned, if I publish some code for free, I don't mind my users to expect that my software will always be free. But if they think I'm going to lose sleep trying to meet their demands without compensation, welp, they are dreaming.
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this. If the software is free, then it's free. It's up to the authors how they want to license it.
Personally, I write code and publish it in the hopes that it will help someone. If someone comes in and says "there's this bug, fix it!" I will only do so if it will benefit me, or if I feel like it.
Haha no worries! It was a genuine question. If it was intention, I would have assumed it was a phrase I'd never heard of before.
Well? Who made it?
Intention or attention?
Dafuq? Artificial always means man-made.
Nature also makes fake stuff. For example, fish that have an appendix that looks like a worm, to attract prey. It's a fake worm. Is it "artificial"? Nope. Not man made.
Damn!!! I got so much to learn.