The same skills used to develop free software can be used to earn a lot of money making corporate software. The same is true for other professions: they can work for an employer, be self-employed, or volunteer their time. The analogy fits, and we all need to earn money to survive.
The carpenter’s “passion project” has turned into a bridge on the city’s main thoroughfare. And now he’s got this great idea for letting a robot maintain it.
The robot’s last job was at the trap door factory.
People are concerned. “My cousin fell through a trap door on the bridge yesterday!” But the carpenter is clear: “Go build your own bridge, then.”
Except that in your analogy, the carpenter was working on his own passion project for free.
Exactly. No one expects free work from carpenters, artists, chefs, etc. But for some reason it’s fine to demand things from free software devs?
Not really. This is not about money but about skill. Hence I said this is not 100% accurate and added a proper explanation.
Open source is not about money. The philosophy and culture around it is centered around a set of values. It’s free as in freedom.
Isn’t a lot of the freedom the ability to fork and make your own version if you don’t think the original version fits your needs?
The same skills used to develop free software can be used to earn a lot of money making corporate software. The same is true for other professions: they can work for an employer, be self-employed, or volunteer their time. The analogy fits, and we all need to earn money to survive.
The carpenter’s “passion project” has turned into a bridge on the city’s main thoroughfare. And now he’s got this great idea for letting a robot maintain it.
The robot’s last job was at the trap door factory.
People are concerned. “My cousin fell through a trap door on the bridge yesterday!” But the carpenter is clear: “Go build your own bridge, then.”
Which he integrates into a NEW bridge. The old bridges remain, forever, to be used for free.
I’m completely aware about that. Hence the acknowledgement and explanation in the first comment itself.
You still explaining your analogy implies that you still think it’s applicable though. My point is that it isn’t.