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)

>In short: take (from anybody) as long as yougive (to anybody)

Another pithy way people express this is with "pay it forward" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_it_forward

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.