On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Daniel Taylor <random at argle.org> wrote:

> Honestly, I thing that ESR's take on the motivations for participating
> in Free software development are misguided and apply only to a minority
> of the contributors.
>
> I make changes to Free Software projects when they fail to meet my needs
> in some specific way that I can remedy. I offer my changes back to the
> community so that others might benefit from them.
>
> Looking at many of the core developers for the same projects, they
> started the same way. No ego boosts, no "noosphere", just a task that
> needed doing and a willingness to share the results with others.
>
>
> Maybe it's me that's the odd one here, but I see it as a perfectly
> rational transaction, programming time in exchange for working code.
>
> Neither capitalist nor communist, but something more closely resembling
> a mass-barter system where most of the participants are making a living
> by using the software that they work on rather than by buying or selling
> the software itself.
>
> Obviously there are other layers to the Free Software ecosystem, but
> without that root the rest doesn't really work out so well.
>
>
Hi Dan,

I was thinking about this more myself yesterday, and agree that "noosphere"
doesn't account for everything, but does account for a lot.  I think game
theory provides a better model for thinking about FOSS models and
contributions, and that ultimately ESR's paper actually is scratching one
facet of the game-theory gem with respect to the actors in FOSS projects.
(It's an important facet though.)

People who study game theory perform valuations in a rather soulless
currency called a 'util', and then make inferences about the 'util' of an
action or outcome to the actor based on observed behaviors.

In your own example, you're exchanging time for working code without any
sort of praise or thanks.  One might infer that for you the 'util' of
working code is high, and the util of public recognition is low.

You noted a lot developers valued public recognition less, and valued making
a contribution to the community and also valued the act of doing the job
(sheer enjoyment of programming).

And another individual (name escapes me at the moment) noted some of those
people were perhaps naive and exploited.  But, that really depends on how
the actors valued the outcomes - whether or not they were exploited really
depends on how they feel as those are in fact subjective assessments.

In summary you're right - there are a lot of motivations out there for
contributing to programs.  I agree ESR's paper doesn't quite cover the
entire spectrum, but I think he does cover an important aspect of FOSS
project dynamics.

-Rob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20111018/844a093a/attachment.html>