On Mar 16, 4:32 am, Mark Kent <mark.k...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>
> > __/ [ cc ] on Thursday 15 March 2007 23:34 \__
>
> >> Not only that, but also to impress co-workers, bosses, customers, etc.
> >> It will depend on where you work naturally. In an environment where
> >> rewards are based on something other than the quality of the work then
> >> of course people would have a tendancy to skimp. But that's any
> >> profession. You guys are assuming that because it's closed source, no
> >> one sees it.
>
> Not remotely what I said. What I *said* was that when you contribute a
> small part to a larger whole in the proprietary world, you do not get
> credit for it from the wider audience. It is frustrating at times, for
> sure, and certainly has a damaging effect on just how much effort you're
> prepared to put in. Your work is merged with that of others and your
> part is now neither distinct nor discernible. Thus ownership is
> removed. This is standard practice in *all* proprietary companies. I
> know, I've worked for a few.
Ownership is removed, yes that's true. But do you really own any open
source you release? I can modify it any way I want, and only have to
give the original other a nod in the comments. That's ownership?
Anyway, you're still wrong about not getting credit from a wider
audience. Every customer who has received something I've worked on,
knows I've contributed. Bosses also know, and co-workers. My company
is not alone in this. There is no damaging effect. Well actually let
me put that another way. There is no reason there has to be a damaging
effect in proprietary companies. Some companies/management suck, and
so you're going to put less effort into it. Either way it has nothing
to do with closed source, and everything to do with a shitty work
environment.
|
|
