Open-source is not noble (opens in new tab)

That’s a fair point! For me, though, open-source was my gateway into the world of engineering, so I’ve always had a bit of a soft spot for it. Without it, I would be nothing.

It is what you make it.

As long as you give what you can realistically spare, there should be no complaint about not getting compensation later.

@jacquesm exactly

An open-source architect is one who creates standardized designs. All their plans are free to obtain, and since they are pre-certified by the municipality, all costs associated with approvals can be bypassed so long as the plans are followed exactly.

An open-source chef is one who works at a restaurant, but wants to spread around the joy of cooking like Alton Brown does, dropping knowledge and techniques that only someone with decades of experience would have.

An open-source electrician is one who reviews questions posed by DYI-ers and provides answers or designs that can help them solve issues while staying safe.

An open-source lumberjack is one who demonstrates how to harvest wood from private land sustainably, and how to process it appropriately with low-cost tools.

All of these involve “work” that does not get compensated for in any direct manner, yet improves the community as a whole and provides real aid for those who most desperately could use it.

And that is noble.

Sorry, but I reject your premise entirely. Open source work is noble, does produce material benefits in excess to what capitalism could ever provide, and brings power to the masses instead of concentrating it into the hands of a minuscule cadre of parasites and economic vampires who are already far more obscenely wealthy than the vast majority of us will ever get to experience.

Maybe if we weren’t enslaved to a violently coercive economic system that demanded we be wildly profitable to someone else least we suffer destitution, homelessness, and even death, we could have a chance of building a better system.