They are not talking about OpenBSD's expectations, it's about the ethics (!) of the companies using things on the back of the generosity without giving back.
I see this mindset more and more, and to me it seems against the ethos of open-source software. There's something philosophically odd about saying "you are free to use, change, redistribute, or sell this with basically no restrictions" while simultaneously maintaining that users incur unstated ethical debts by accepting. It could even be seen as a kind of bait-and-switch.
Contributions and reciprocity are praiseworthy of course, and we should all aspire to this. But that doesn't mean someone is ethically wrong for choosing to accept a gift freely given without giving one in return.
You are legally free to use. Your ethical obligations will depend on your particular worldview, and are likely to vary substantially by culture.
All cultures I'm familiar with recognize that someone who is well off taking advantage of a tragedy of the commons is unethical. The particulars vary by locale but my impression is that it is universal that the degree of condemnation increases the wealthier the person exploiting the system is.
The thing about the tragedy of the commons is that you are actively hurting everyone else by depleting a non-rivalrous good.
When I accept a friend's hospitality and don't reciprocate, I am taking their time and resources. When I take five free samples at the store, I ruin it for others who come later.
When I download an open source GitHub repo, I am burning 1¢ of Microsoft's money.
The cost of software is not the cost of distribution, it's the cost of maintenance, support, and implementation. When you clone a repo, this has little impact by itself, but the work to create that repository in the first place, to maintain it and ensure it is free of bugs, and to provide documentation and support so that people understand how to use it - that all has a cost.
If nobody pays for that cost, then the work will never get done in the first place, and we won't have these resources.
> When I download an open source GitHub repo, I am burning 1¢ of Microsoft's money.
While the other examples seem good for illustrating the point, this one has it backwards I think. Microsoft worked very hard to be in this position. They did this on purpose and this aspect is essential to their success:
- GitHub did everything they could to capture the market by being free to use and by leveraging the network effect
- Microsoft bought GitHub at a point where it was already widely successful in this aspect, so they fully knew what they were buying
Capturing the whole open source market is part of their business model. I don't like they've done this and I don't get to choose where authors host their code. Even the authors themselves might not have felt free to choose something else because of the network effect. It's only fair Microsoft pays for the privilege. GitHub being free is a feature for Microsoft.
> When I accept a friend's hospitality and don't reciprocate
I came to realize that you don't need to return the favor specifically to the person who helped you. Things work as long as you help anybody. The loop will be closed by someone who will eventually help the person who helped you (or has in the past). Actually, it doesn't events need to be a loop. This is very powerful and quite relaxing because you can be chill both for helping and for receiving help, and it has the potential of working very well and be very enjoyable.
In short: take (from anybody) as long as yougive (to anybody)
(Of course, in a friendship, some reciprocity is necessary, if things only go one way, it doesn't work)
Ah, I didn't plan to keep this "In short" sentence in my comment, but it allowed you to share this, nice. I didn't know this "Pay it forward" phrasing nor that the idea was theorized (but of course it was, in hindsight). It is such a nicer way to express this.
I'm not sure I see the point in distinguishing between something beneficial being reduced in value actively versus passively. Whether it's individuals taking negative action or individuals failing to take positive action, the end result is the same at the end of the day. Something beneficial is reduced in value by collective greedy (in)action. The world at large is made worse for it over time.
Perhaps my definition is off? If so I would appreciate a pointer about the correct terminology.
I suppose it might be different in the case of a one-time fork. It still seems like there's an ethical obligation to contribute back if you are well off and you benefit from something. I think there's a meta, societal level tragedy of the commons to be found there. But if you aren't actively benefiting from maintenance efforts then perhaps it doesn't qualify as a direct tragedy of the commons.
> But that doesn't mean someone is ethically wrong for choosing to accept a gift freely given without giving one in return
Many cultures do in fact work that way. And while modern American culture views the idea of taking everything you can and only giving back what you are contractually forced to in a more positive light, the term freeloader still has negative connotations.
If you're a maintainer and reciprocity is an important value to you, and you think that people who don't give back are freeloading, then why did you specifically choose not to use a GPL license for your project?
Your point about the gap between the words of a license and an ethical expectation is well taken. But why put that gap there at all? It's going out of your way to make sure that people have the choice to screw you.
> American culture views the idea of taking everything you can and only giving back what you are contractually forced to in a more positive light
That’s not a thing in American culture. Maybe you are referring the low trust culture of international commerce, which just happens to be centered in the US.
> There's something philosophically odd about saying "you are free to use, change, redistribute, or sell this with basically no restrictions" while simultaneously maintaining that users incur unstated ethical debts by accepting
Not users, companies that make bilions. We call that shameless.
How many restaurants serve food and ask for donations from patrons instead of charge them specific amounts? People are not generous, large companies made of lots of people, none of which feel specifically responsible for the companies actions are also going to accordingly not be. If they need money, the expectations should be set accordingly. Maybe spruce should be open but features and bug reports must have accompanying bounties set by the individuals reporting them otherwise the maintainer will ignore them.
If you make it about ethics, it's not going to work. Your C-suite folks wont be on board.
You need to make it about utility. Open sourcing some package or contributions to an existing package is giving you returns far beyond your investment. A community will help maintaining, improving, growing your code. Perhaps even competitors will chip in. (If they don't, well, their loss..) It's going to be a net positive.
I don’t think OpenBSD is clamoring for code contributions from the companies with proprietary SSH forks. Just money to support continued development.
> Use GPLv3 or AGPL then. If you want companies to "give back" when they use your code, put it in the licence.
Seems like a poor choice given that projects like MongoDB try out AGPL for this reason and then later switch to nonfree licenses like SSPL. OpenBSD is not interested in that—whether its attempts to raise funds through goodwill work out or not, OpenBSD will always be free software.
That's the excuse, but society only works if people behave ethically and not entirely in their self-interest. I don't see why that doesn't apply to people working in businesses, and it never has: Businesses have always contributed to their communities in many ways.
A moral people could operate communism successfully. Unfortunately, most people are not even remotely moral. Pragmatically moral (in plain view, but not behind closed doors), for sure, but innately good -- definitely not.
This is incorrect. Companies form for numerous different reasons, including a group of people needing a legal structure for investments, or to protect against liability, or for particular ventures.
One of the primary outcomes that people want from corporate structures is profit, but that is not the structure's "sole purpose", either in law or practise.
Corporate structures can't have ethics because they are not people (legal constructions of "person" vs "natural person" notwithstanding).
Capitalism is usually maximization of selfish gain. A business in any form maximizes the objective of its owners, often financial gain. However, they can be designed to or run for altruistic purposes or a mix of altruism and selfishness. Here's two types of companies not soley about the money:
