> But it isn't nice when someone complains they're not getting a thank you for something they choose to do willingly and weren't asked to do.
If you benefit from something someone else does, you owe them a debt of gratitude. It's not a legal debt, and it's not denominated in dollars and cents... but you shouldn't be surprised that there are norms of repaying this debt in various ways and that people/entities that excessively "take" from the commons incur reputational damage.
> I just wanted to say that in general, yes those social norms are often against what I'd consider a free society, since they are just another axis of power to force you into behaviors you might not have agreed to participate in.
This just feels like hyperbole to me. Expecting acknowledgment from someone when they've benefitted from something you've done is not an unreasonable ask. Getting shamed when you don't do this isn't a significant curtailment of liberty.
> If you benefit from something someone else does, you owe them a debt of gratitude. It's not a legal debt, and it's not denominated in dollars and cents... but you shouldn't be surprised that there are norms of repaying this debt in various ways
Yes and this is what I'm criticizing. If I am in dept, then say so and make it explicit to me before I take the dept unknowingly, otherwise I'm sorry, but I will in turn shame you for being a cry baby and I won't abide by these norms, because I disagree with them.
To me, social norm is just another form of force to impose ones will on others. And thus an attack on liberty. And the idea of a social contract is that I consent to give away some liberties for being able to participate in a functioning society. But when the social contract isn't explicit, and expectations arn't stated, I find that unfair, no matter if the force is physical or psychological. The act of coming back after the deed, and saying that accepting the deed bound me to X,Y,Z where none of those was stipulated, ya I find that crooked. At this point anything can be stipulated. For example, what is Amazon supposed to do here? Should they offer a job? Pay up some amount of money? Cancel their project? Put a banner on amazon.com thanking the contributor? How long should the banner stay up? Etc. They're just at the mercy of the wims of others, and they might start to regret having taken this "dept" which they didn't know came with all these strings attached. And by the way, it's not just that they didn't know, on fact, the author had written down in details as part of the attached license what all the expectations were, but now claims that more was implicitly expected based on some loosely defined social norms. Had the work been unlicensed, Amazon would not have used it.
P.S.: But again, just to be clear, I'm talking about the principles at play here, in this particular scenario, I acknowledge this isn't like a massive issue and a crazy demand or attack on Amazon's liberty. And I'd be really amazed and impressed and would think highly of Amazon if they went above and beyond the license here.
> To me, social norm is just another form of force to impose ones will on others. And thus an attack on liberty. And the idea of a social contract is that I consent to give away some liberties for being able to participate in a functioning society. But when the social contract isn't explicit, and expectations arn't stated, I find that unfair, no matter if the force is physical or psychological.
Welp, good luck with that. There's tens of thousands of social rules that are understood by 99% of people, and you're not going to find an explicit list somewhere of how far to stand away from someone when talking to them, to what kinds of initial conversations are appropriate, to saying "thank you" after someone gives you something, to attributing an idea to someone else, etc. And failing to follow them will rapidly earn you scorn.
> For example, what is Amazon supposed to do here? Should they offer a job? Pay up some amount of money? Cancel their project? Put a banner on amazon.com thanking the contributor?
If the product is 98% built upon some open source stuff, you put in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph description that it's "built upon" or "powered by" or "makes use of." Even a footnote might be OK. This is pretty obviously the right thing to do, and it's also helpful to your users in understanding what your product is.
If you benefit from something someone else does, you owe them a debt of gratitude. It's not a legal debt, and it's not denominated in dollars and cents... but you shouldn't be surprised that there are norms of repaying this debt in various ways and that people/entities that excessively "take" from the commons incur reputational damage.
> I just wanted to say that in general, yes those social norms are often against what I'd consider a free society, since they are just another axis of power to force you into behaviors you might not have agreed to participate in.
This just feels like hyperbole to me. Expecting acknowledgment from someone when they've benefitted from something you've done is not an unreasonable ask. Getting shamed when you don't do this isn't a significant curtailment of liberty.