> No, I'm doubling down on challenging the author to be more audacious:
You've edited your comment since it was originally posted, but as a reminder, this is what I was responding to:
> If those communities and apps already respect their users, then do they need this author? What difference would they make?
Which is a pointedly ridiculous thing to say. No, you were not calling on the author to be more ambitious, this is silly.
---
> b) be more ambitious - building or contributing to yet another 3rd party Mastodon or Matrix client (both?) is just more noise in a crowded space going after a relatively small audience.
Donation of time and effort to make platforms more attractive that you are ethically aligned with is not just "noise in a crowded space".
As if FOSS tooling was a crowded space!! These projects are desperate for volunteers, and lack of developer time and resources is one of the biggest handicaps that these projects often face. It is unquestionably valuable for people to volunteer effort in this direction.
It might not be flashy, it might not give you a giant userbase. But some people have different metrics of success than that, and high-impact activities often aren't flashy. You bring up building new projects as an alternative to donating to existing efforts. Yeah, that sounds very attractive and flashy, but there are a half-dozen FOSS platform alternatives to every proprietary service and we don't actually need more of them. What we need is for people to focus on a couple that already exist and make them as good as possible. It's less sexy, but it matters more.
> As if FOSS tooling was a crowded space!! These projects are desperate for volunteers, and lack of developer time and resources is one of the biggest handicaps that these projects often face
thinking about eg the recent xz vuln, isn't this somewhat indicative of a licensing failure on the part of FOSS licenses? the point of licensing is to ensure the author is properly compensated for his work, and if the work is used by billion dollar companies while authors scrape by and beg for donations, it seems to me that the license isn't doing its job. the license should capture some value and give it to the author.
it's completely absurd that professional tooling is begging for volunteers. you don't see that in any other field.
That could be a longer conversation, but I think there's a subset of community-run projects that would be desperate for volunteers even if they were proprietary. In general most non-exploitative volunteer spaces are clamoring for volunteers even outside of software. Your local library is probably clamoring for volunteers (depending on the location). If you're in a rural area your school is probably clamoring for substitute teachers. And on and on.
I have opinions about the movement away from FOSS to source available licenses, but I think independent of all of that, smaller projects that fulfill important niches but that are not easily monetizable generally need help, and I don't think that would change if software licenses changed. Some projects could probably get better funding, but many would be in the same position.
I think in general there is more productive stuff to do in the world than there are people available to do it -- and I don't just mean in software, I mean everywhere. The world is held together by duck tape because a surprising small proportion of people volunteer to duck tape it together, and any effort that anyone expands towards helping them and making the world better instead of exclusively chasing whatever the next sexy high-visibility project is -- I think that's important, impactful work.
You've edited your comment since it was originally posted, but as a reminder, this is what I was responding to:
> If those communities and apps already respect their users, then do they need this author? What difference would they make?
Which is a pointedly ridiculous thing to say. No, you were not calling on the author to be more ambitious, this is silly.
---
> b) be more ambitious - building or contributing to yet another 3rd party Mastodon or Matrix client (both?) is just more noise in a crowded space going after a relatively small audience.
Donation of time and effort to make platforms more attractive that you are ethically aligned with is not just "noise in a crowded space".
As if FOSS tooling was a crowded space!! These projects are desperate for volunteers, and lack of developer time and resources is one of the biggest handicaps that these projects often face. It is unquestionably valuable for people to volunteer effort in this direction.
It might not be flashy, it might not give you a giant userbase. But some people have different metrics of success than that, and high-impact activities often aren't flashy. You bring up building new projects as an alternative to donating to existing efforts. Yeah, that sounds very attractive and flashy, but there are a half-dozen FOSS platform alternatives to every proprietary service and we don't actually need more of them. What we need is for people to focus on a couple that already exist and make them as good as possible. It's less sexy, but it matters more.