• Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    This has been going on for decades. CDDB, IMDB, Redhat.

    Anything you volunteer for will be monetized and you will get cut off from your own contributions.

    Even here on Lemmy people post Twitter images and Reddit reader apps which only helps those platforms retain mindshare even if they aren’t directly profiting with ads.

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      10 months ago

      This is a bit of “no true Scotsman” fallacy. If something you volunteer for hasn’t been monetized you can always say ‘yet’

      FOSS is something people volunteer for and it mostly doesn’t get monetized and cut off. Sometimes this means that the original is cut off but a fork lives on, so I would rather say that volunteering for a closed product is dangerous in that regard, not volunteering forany product

      • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        10 months ago

        This is where licensing is important. If you want to contribute your time to something you think is important, make sure that your contributions are licensed to be open and free.

        If a for-profit company violates the license, the contributors can fight back. If there is no license, you’re just giving them free labor that they can exploit however they please.

    • skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      To be fair every FOSS license will prevent a company from having exclusive rights to use your work. Even if you get a bit lax and include MIT and BSD licenses as FOSS, a company still cannot take your work and stop other people from using it.

      In the case of Duolingo, it’s pretty different because that volunteer labor output is gated in a proprietary walled garden.

      Whereas contributing a patch to chromium for example will never gate that contribution, even if it makes it into chrome and produces millions of dollars of profit for google. You can always and forever freely access and use a version of chromium with your patch as long as there’s still a copy left to access.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        To be fair every FOSS license will prevent a company from having exclusive rights to use your work

        The trajectory for many Foss projects is to get the hardest part off the ground with mindshare and initial development. Then after all the hard work it becomes successful, the project is closed and all new features are added into the closed fork.

        Technically you still have the original work but within a few years the project is dead except for your personal work because the main fork has a large corporation behind it continuing the development.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Meh Rehat gets a pass in my mind at least. They give back to the community enough. We are never going to get perfect people or groups. Microsoft is a totally different story.

    • fidodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Google has a volunteer program to make their AI better. Fucking one of the biggest corporations in the world asking for free labor and apparently people do it?

        • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Google banned 4chan from using recaptcha at the time because everyone was just typing swear words in place of the scanned word that Google couldn’t OCR

          • antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Where did you hear about that? It sounds odd, because surely Google could’ve filtered out the swearwords, and at the end of the day users still had to solve the captcha correctly sooner or later if they wanted to post.

            • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              The old two word captchas were one word that Google knows in order to test if you’re human, and one word scanned from Google’s book scanning program that their algorithms failed to properly OCR, meaning for the second word you could type in whatever you wanted and you would pass the captcha

              Sites were allowed to use recaptcha for free because their users were actually doing work training neural nets to read books better, if a large percentage of their users are saying every unknown scan is the n-word, I could see why Google wouldn’t want them having access to it