bug#45894: AW: AW: AW: bug#45894: Bug report for preview-latex

[Bruckmann, Tobias]

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2021 14:10
> An: Bruckmann, Tobias <tobias.bruckmann@uni-due.de>
> Cc: Ikumi Keita <ikumi@ikumi.que.jp>; 45894@debbugs.gnu.org;
> 44578@debbugs.gnu.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: bug#45894: Bug report for preview-latex
> 
> "Bruckmann, Tobias" <tobias.bruckmann@uni-due.de> writes:
> 
> > Dear David,
> >
> > this is a good question. I didn't want to push
> 
> Not?
> 
No. I just asked whether there is a chance that this gets a fix. You
mentioned that you are not seeing a chance to fix it due to conflicts
between Hyperref and LaTeX internals, and I wanted to know if this means the
toolchain I described is dead, despite its relevance for scientific authors.
If you confirm this, I will have to change my toolchain. Or look for other
people who stumble across the same issue and who are maybe able to fix it. 

> > but just point out the relevance of the issue, believing that you feel
> > a personal appreciation (and/or certain responsibility) for a code you
> > officially maintain.
> >
> > If I had the expertise to fix the code on my own, I would not have
> > spent the time to find and bother you, but better invest it to produce
> > the solution and propose it to you.
> >
> > If you ask for money - that could be a problem. I have no idea on the
> > time needed to find the problem, to fix and to test it. Hiring a
> > professional is probably beyond my budget as I am just an academics.
> > As such, I am volunteering as well in multiple matters, trying to
> > improve things - so I think when it comes to projects driven by
> > enthusiastism, I share your engagement, but I don't think that a
> > spirit of needing individual payments will lead to a better future for
> > open source projects.
> 
> I thought so.  I've invested decades of my time in Free Software, living
below
> minimum wage, with the obvious consequences for my personal future.  All
> that buys you is people thinking they are entitled to it and argue you
should do
> more for them.
> 
> There are times when this motivational framework does not work all that
well
> for me.

I understand. But look, Free Software in its core concept was always driven
by enthusiasts who enjoy spending their leisure time in creating software
together. I agree, this implies that no one can push you. Now you join
the project and try to enforce a business model. I know how it feels if a
business plan fails, but you cannot blame the Free Software model, driven by
people doing things for themselves and others because of ... fun.

Note, I did not ask a company to implement an extra software feature for me,
but I asked the voluntary maintainers to give a comment on chances for a bug
fix. 

Don't get me wrong, but on my side it feels like you turned the Free
Software maintainer position into a sales platform for your service.
Establishing a functionality in Free Software, letting people rely on it and
then(!) ask for money for bugfixes does not feel fair for me: If you intend
to make money
with software (which is absolutely reasonable), then create a product, put a
price tag on it and advertise. Then customers might buy it for a price they
know in advance, and the sum of their payments will pay your bills. This is
what commercial programmers do.

If you decide to create and advertise commercial LaTeX packages,
I totally might be amongst your customers if they simplify my work. 

LaTeX
would probably take advantage from such entrepreneur initiatives, just like
Linux. But - please - don’t change the rules during the game...

Tobias

> 
> --
> David Kastrup

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature