On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 08:21:48AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:46:20PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield <asuffield@suffields.me.uk> wrote:
> > >Anybody who has to ask "Why should I/we/they contribute?" is not
> > >suitable for Debian. (The "answer", incidentally, is "because we can"
> > >or "because it's there", or some other variation; it is a goal in
> > >itself, and not a means to an end)
> >
> > OK, now *that* is just nonsense. People contribute because they:
> >
> > * use Debian and want to make it better
> > * want to do something which is made easier by contributing to Debian
>
> These are passable, and a variation on the same theme.
The first reason is an excellent reason to keep a private repository.
The second reason seems to be routinely rejected when brought up by anyone
in the NM queue as being an issue.
> > * want to contribute something to a project they respect
> > * want to help out Debian users
> > * want to help promote the goals of Debian
>
> These are bad reasons.
They are also the only reasons anyone would want to contribute to Debian,
rather than to, say, NetBSD. Or any other open-source OS you might care
to name. "Because it's there" may be a reason to code, but it produces no
motivation whatsoever to contribute to Debian when there are MUCH easier
places to contribute to.
> > I'm sure there are other reasons.
> >
> > "Because it's there" is a non-reason. OK, maybe it was a
> > reasonable (if silly) answer for why to climb Mt. Everest. But Debian
> > isn't a natural feature of the landscape, and it certainly isn't an
> > exceptional and notable one. (Real reasons for climbing Mt.
> > Everest included "I like climbing mountains" and "It's the tallest
> > mountain in the world", which were both implicitly understood.)
> >
> > That 'reason' isn't going to get *anyone* to contribute to Debian. It
> > might get them to climb Mt. Everest, I suppose.
>
> That's funny. Those were all things I've heard from people who've been
> with the project for years.
>
> I don't think you're going to get it, either. It's basically the same
> question as "Why do people write free software?", and if you come up
> with "altruism", "politics", or "respect" then you're barking up the
> wrong tree.
Funny. I thought the FSF was, at least origionally, more or less entirely
about self-interest, altruism, and politics. There is certainly a
self-interest to the early adopter, a risk taken (publishing free code)
that one might hope to gain from (others publish free code that you can
use in exchange). At this point, however, there is very little reason for
self-interest to drive such things; the amount of code available is so vast
that nearly anything you want can be found, cobbled together, or otherwise
made with little effort. The only real exception is completely new stuff;
even that, however, is often available quickly.
These days, leeches don't actually write free code, even in the hopes
of getting more free code; they already have more than they could ever
realistically use, available.
So tell us - why *do* people write free software?
--
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter : :' :
`. `'
`-
Attachment:
pgp7LUoiurXJH.pgp
Description: PGP signature