On 17 January 2014 10:49, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
>
> On 17 Jan 2014, at 11:27, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 16 January 2014 23:16, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16 January 2014 21:15, Hilaire Fernandes <hilaire.fernandes@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Le 16/01/2014 12:55, H. Hirzel a ��crit :
>>>>
>>>>>>> ���We are not payed to work on Squeak���, that is what I got told���
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably correct at that time...
>>>>
>>> This is usual attitude in corporate environment: you paying me to do the
>>> job,
>>> i do it and i don't care about the rest. Been there, ate that :)
>>
>> If I pay you to do X, and you spend all my money doing Y, you need a
>> very good story explaining why I don't get what I paid for.
>
> If I get paid to do X, based on an open-source platform that helps me tremendously, then it is only logical and ethical to give back and support that platform - it would even be in my own self interest.
>
> Big, hot US companies do this all the time for thousands of projects.

That is true of the entity paying to do the work. If you paid me to
get features X, Y & Z done, and instead I did lots of (good!) work on
other projects _not directly relevant to X, Y & Z_, I think you'd have
every right to get angry with me.

I'm _not_ suggesting that it's right for someone to completely ignore
the libraries that they use. I am saying that there are multiple
forces behind "we don't get paid to do X", and "this work doesn't help
me deliver X" is perfectly legitimate.

frank

>> Seen in hindsight, everything is obvious. At the time it might have
>> been far from obvious.
>>
>> frank
>
>