5 ms·
No requirement doesn't mean "don't be a mensch"
by dnautics 15d ago
No requirement doesn't mean "don't be a mensch"
- rdbl27 15d agoYou believe you know better than the authors themselves about how they ought to be treated? They chose -- explicitly, voluntarily, knowingly -- to give the thing away for free. That's their right for their own creation. Your preferences don't supersede theirs.
- sampullman 15d agoYou've emphasized this point more than once, but I don't think it's a good counterargument to the GP. It is equally valid to say that they have explicitly (voluntarily, knowlingly) chosen to accept donations for their work. By profiting off their work and not supporting them you are making your own choice. It says nothing about the authors' preference.
- rdbl27 10d agoThey chose a license that is _explicitly designed_ to allow people to profit from their work without paying. There are many other licensing terms in common use. They chose that one. That's fine, they can do what they like with their work. There is no moral obligation to reinterpret their motives in a fashion that differs from their formally expressed preferences. They chose to accept donations -- also fine. If you want to donate, go ahead. If you don't -- that's fine too, by definition.
- stackghost 15d agoI don't know what a mensch is but if they wanted to be compensated for their software they should not have released it as Free Software.
- Mashimo 15d agoMensch is German for Human.
- Dylan16807 15d agoYeah but like, we don't know if OP is making any money off this, let alone significant money. Let's not instantly hold them to the same "please contribute or you're dragging things down" standard as a zillion dollar corporation.
- esperent 15d ago> we don't know if OP is making any money off this I'm not, and don't have any intentions to monetize it.
- deadbabe 15d agoThere is also no expectation to bash people who do not want to donate anything.