Ask HN: Why is the $0 hijacking of intellectual labor so normalized in OSS?
3 pointsby fumi20265 hours ago3 comments
  • ekjhgkejhgk5 hours ago
    Because the "open source" movement has been co-oped by corporations which promote for precisely this reason.

    Actually contributing to a common good is done by building Free and Copyleft software, not "open source" which is term that offers no legal protections and the things you're talking about.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

    • fumi20265 hours ago
      Typical HN response: pivoting to a pedantic debate about licenses to avoid the actual ethical crisis.

      Whether I use GPL, MIT, or a custom Copyleft, it doesn't solve the Cognitive Tax problem. Licensing doesn't fix the fact that a 'community' of highly-paid engineers expects me to provide years of non-perturbative logic for free, while they lack the bandwidth to even peer-review it without an LLM.

      You say 'Free Software' protects the user. Fine. But who protects the outlier creator from being mentally strip-mined by a sea of Takers? You’re suggesting a better cage, not a path to sovereignty.

      Again: If you can’t verify the math without a chatbot, are you a 'contributor' to the common good, or just a sophisticated parasite?"

      • lordkrandelan hour ago
        No one actually forces anyone to create opensource. It is a choice of creation and licensing. A choice of giving. The fact that you are "supposed" to then maintain and work on it it's just in your mind. If you don't want to give to the public, you can avoid it by not creating, publishing, or licensing differently. You got plenty of choice. Just stop being annoying.
  • clipsy2 hours ago
    Who is doing the "expecting" here? I've contributed to open source projects, both as a volunteer and in return for compensation, but if someone "expected" me to contribute to an open source project I had no desire to contribute to I'd laugh and tell them to piss off.
  • bigyabai5 hours ago
    > Since when did the spirit of hacking—understanding things from first principles—get replaced by the spirit of "I want this for free and I want it now"?

    1989, the year the GPL was published.

    • fumi20265 hours ago
      A charming historical reference. However, using 1989 logic to justify the 'cognitive looting' of 2026 is like refusing to patch a kernel vulnerability because you're fond of the legacy code. Back then, the battle was over hardware monopolies. Today, the crisis is the asymmetric strip-mining of human intellect by massive compute. If your worldview hasn't received a security update since the 80s, you’re not a hacker; you’re just a legacy system waiting to be deprecated.
      • bigyabai5 hours ago
        Back then the battle was over $100 C compilers. You likely haven't ever paid for a C compiler in your life, and I guarantee you that your life is better off for it.
        • fumi20265 hours ago
          I’d gladly pay $100 for a compiler if it meant my life's work wasn't strip-mined for $0 by the companies providing the 'free' tools. A free pen is no consolation for the theft of the novel written with it. You're mistaking a reduction in overhead for a gift of sovereignty. Enjoy the free birdseed; I'd rather own the sky.
          • selfhoster113 hours ago
            So only those with money should be allowed to play with tools? If you have no income, are unbanked, or are in an area with low earnings, that compiler is out of reach. And then you're back to piracy.
          • bigyabai3 hours ago
            Your life's work is only worth what someone will pay for it. You can't sell a $100 C compiler when the free one works just as well (or better).

            If you want to make software that is valuable, you should compete for market share by doing it better than anyone else. Otherwise, your work kinda is worthless. Stallman noted this in the 1980s, acknowledging that the cost of manufacturing software is only limited by the cost of storing it on-disc and transmitting it over the internet. He was right.

            • fumi20263 hours ago
              You’re quoting the Gospel of Stallman while the temple is burning. Stallman talked about the cost of distribution; I’m talking about the cost of creation. In the age of LLMs, 'market share' is a joke when the infrastructure providers can ingest your logic for free and sell the derivative of your consciousness back to the masses. You think you're competing in a 'market,' but you’re actually just a unpaid research department for big compute. If my work is 'worthless' unless it's bought, then humanity’s collective intelligence is being marked down to zero. Enjoy your free compiler—it’s the leash you use to walk yourself into obsolescence.
              • bigyabai2 hours ago
                The Cathedral & The Bazaar are both alright. You are describing the failure of businesses to compete against the bare minimum.

                I will enjoy my free compiler, thanks.