Comment by jim-jim-jim

Comment by jim-jim-jim 2 days ago

2 replies

My income is tied to the labor time I exert in creating/supporting services. I don't sit back and collect royalties on the code itself. Software is one of the first fields where the fundamental worthlessness of content revealed itself, hence FOSS.

When you watch a musical performance, you are also paying for labor. Even when you buy a physical art object, all the costs involved decompose back to labor. When you have a digital copy of something, there is no labor input to its creation, so guess what the inherent value is.

Animators drew actual cels. Theater workers clocked in and screened the films. The guys at the DVD factory pressed the discs. We paid for all of this already. It's double-billing to charge for copypasting the mere likeness of something. Nobody's doing any work for that.

loki-ai 2 days ago

you’re allowed to tie your income to creating systems precisely because you’re not allowed to copy them from previous companies or other sources

selling software isn’t much different from a musician collecting royalties, especially now when everything’s shifted to a subscription model. it lets us keep pretending we’re adding value, even though most of them often stays the same for years

  • jim-jim-jim 2 days ago

    Sorry, but I don't buy it. It's not like we're milking a secret golden algorithm. If all my company's code were open sourced tomorrow, I don't think a competitor could do much with it, since they'd just be presented with bog standard CRUD. It's still relationships and sweat that's keeping the lights on for the time being.