On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 08:56:04 UTC, Joakim wrote:
So given that all your claims are easily logically proven to be
nonsense, there's no point in going any further.
You need to do better than that to convince me ;-)
Now.. I might entertain a model of paying someone, *after* they
had committed there fix back to the community, as open source
(and the fix has been formely approved and confirmed) - but
certainly not beforehand.
But even that really worries me, as people may then refuse to
contribute unless they know they're going to get paid. And, it
assumes that people in that open source community project have
the means to pay them. What happens to that open source community
when the funds are not there?? Do the developers just go off and
look for other projects that do have funds, like they were
'bounty' hunters. Is that the future we should be creating?
Your so called hybrid model, is like my neighbour borrowing my
lawn mower, and while he's got it, he notices it needs an oil
change, does the oil change, and then refuses to give me back the
lawn mower till I've reimbursed him. But he never paid for the
lawn mower did he??
Well.. my neigbour says, if you can't pay me for the oil, then
I'll take the new oil out, put the old oil back in, and then you
can have your lawn mower back.
I don't want neighbours like that.
