[HN Gopher] Open source is not about you (2018) ___________________________________________________________________ Open source is not about you (2018) Author : capableweb Score : 261 points Date : 2022-07-02 09:39 UTC (13 hours ago) (HTM) web link (gist.github.com) (TXT) w3m dump (gist.github.com) | oxplot wrote: | How does it get to this stage where someone has to write up a | hostile post to get across this point? Have the maintainers been | too nice/polite and/or accommodating and now resent it in face of | requests they can't fulfill (and the backlash it may have | caused)? | | I'm genuinely puzzled as to why bluntly refusing a feature, | contribution, etc they didn't like hasn't worked for them. It's | worked just fine for my limited experience in maintaining FOSS | projects. Perhaps there is a scale aspect that I'm missing here. | davedx wrote: | I've said it before: "entitlement" goes both ways. Treating | users of your software like the enemy is no way to behave, | whether it's open source or not. If you don't like your users - | maybe it's time to take a break from software development? | capableweb wrote: | Based on this post, you get the impression that Hickey think | Clojure users are his enemies? I didn't get that impression | at all, and I also know that Hickey sees Clojure users as | friends, receives feedback from many in the community, and | Clojure is open to community contributions, although | differently than many other projects are run. | b3morales wrote: | Perhaps not Clojure, but there are other projects where | this is an issue. Users are treated as a burden: the | regular response to a bug or request is "well why don't you | do it yourself then". I don't really want to start a flame | war so I won't name names, but I have seen it. Though I'll | say it is thankfully rare. | wildmanx wrote: | It's a typical pattern that I've seen in FOSS projects over the | last decades. Somebody writes something cool, publishes it, is | initially happy about adoption and positive feedback, and then | people start to demand more and more of them. Fix this thing, | add that thing, here is my code, when are you finally going to | merge it, why are you not responding, you are not respectful of | me, etc. etc. Then a mix of burnout and resentment happens and | the more bold ones issue such a statement. Others just abandon | their project and are never seen again. | | It's very sad, and it's rooted in a basic misconception of what | FOSS actually is. That's why such posts are important to | educate people, even if it sounds drastic. | oxplot wrote: | > It's a typical pattern that I've seen in FOSS | | You'd think that people working on FOSS are aware of this | pattern and watch out for it. But seemingly not! | mpyne wrote: | Is there any reason that you think being aware of the | pattern is enough to solve it, or feel no consequences from | it? I think people are aware of the pattern (it's not hard | to notice) but that doesn't solve the issues it creates. | CuriousSkeptic wrote: | There may be another thing at play too. Many projects are | presented as being useful: "I built this great thing, you | should use it!" Open Source or not, this gets to be a | promise people will be held accountable for. | | If instead a project is described as "I built this thing | for me. Here's the source. Please don't trust me, or my | code, with anything valuable" expectations can be better | aligned perhaps. | | There can of course be middle grounds. "I wrote this | useful code. If you need me to be your project manager | for it, here's how you can pay for that privilege" | wildmanx wrote: | > If instead a project is described as "I built this | thing for me. Here's the source. Please don't trust me, | or my code, with anything valuable" expectations can be | better aligned perhaps. | | Every open source project states this explicitly. In the | license. Usually in all caps. Wanna see? | | MIT license has: | | --- THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF | ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED | TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A | PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL | THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, | DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF | CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN | CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS | IN THE SOFTWARE. --- | | See? "No warranty of any kind." I.e. "don't trust this | with anything valuable". How can this be more explicit? | | GPL: | | --- 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, | THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT | PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED | IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES | PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, | EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED | TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS | FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE | QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. | SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST | OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. --- | | See? "The entire risk as to the quality and performance | of the program is with you". How can this be more | explicit? | | Nowhere does it state that the author is obliged to | provide support, reply to issue reports, accept merge | requests, or is even nice to anybody. It's great if they | are, and I appreciate such projects as well, but nobody | is entitled to that. So please don't assume it or berate | people if you encounter the opposite. This builds false | expectations in others who don't know any better. We need | to help each other out to build proper understanding | within the community. | grzm wrote: | I think there are at least two factors at play: genuine | disagreement about what open source is, and a variant of | the Eternal September effect. | ironmagma wrote: | > it's rooted in a basic misconception of what FOSS actually | is | | I don't think so. It's rooted in the expectation of open | source: that code is provided with the intent of being | useful. But if you never merge patches, that isn't very | useful. There's a forking cost and people are aware of it so | it's just natural behavior. | tracerbulletx wrote: | If it's not useful why are they using it? | ironmagma wrote: | Lock-in, usually. Using a tool that has it as a | dependency. Also, if it's un-useful, they probably won't | be using it for much longer since it will likely be | forked. But that takes effort, so it's easier to ask for | the original dependency to just be updated, especially if | the patch has already been submitted (which is like 90%+ | of the work). | capableweb wrote: | Not sure which "hostile post" you are referring to, as I don't | think the submitted article is hostile at all. It's just very | clear in what the author is trying to get across. | | But anyway, this is how we got to the point of Hickey writing | this post: | | - Heavy Clojure User received bunch of feedback from friends | and colleagues asking why something hasn't been fixed yet in | Clojure core | | - Heavy Clojure User sees that bunch of stuff hasn't been | fixed, so they take it on themselves to fix these issues and | submit patches | | - The workflow of "Submit patch -> Have Hickey review it and | deny it -> Make changes -> Wait for Hickey again -> etc etc" | was too slow for the Heavy Clojure User | | - So Heavy Clojure User made their post describing "How to | contribute to Clojure", blaming the core team for not working | tightly enough with the community and spending enough time | reviewing/accepting patches | | - Hickey publishes this post titled "Open Source is Not About | You" not entirely aimed at "Heavy Clojure User" but the | community at large, while still being a reaction to that post | by Heavy Clojure User | | - Heavy Clojure User apologizes for the initial post, for tying | Clojure with their own identity and explains a period of self- | reflection has begun. | chris_wot wrote: | Sometimes directness comes across as hostility. Telling | someone they aren't entitled to something can come across as | hostile, even though it isn't and is merely the truth. | oxplot wrote: | > as I don't think the submitted article is hostile at all | | Tone is lost in text and I don't have much background. If I | was thinking of contributing to Clojure, this post is reason | enough to stay away from it. | | Based on your explanation, I think Hickey should have simply | ignored the user's post and let that be the end of it. I | mentioned "blunt" response to individual contributions. That | is quite different to a blanket statement with a "we don't | owe you s... - f... off if you don't like it" vibe. | robertlagrant wrote: | The blanket statement is correct, though. It may not be | couched in a palatable way, but only in that it doesn't | spend lots of words on how lovely everyone is and how few | people it is addressing. It just says what's true and | leaves it at that. If you'd rather not work in that | environment then that's reasonable, but I think it's a | little refreshing compared to what I normally read from big | OSS projects. | mvc wrote: | > If I was thinking of contributing to Clojure, this post | is reason enough to stay away from it. | | Without wanting to sound flippant or rude, I think they'd | be cool with that. They're talking about contributions to | the core language here. Not fixing typos in a README. | | In mature projects like this, all the low-hanging fruit is | done. You can't just take a notion some weekend and fire | off a useful pull request. It requires an investment. To | make a good contribution to Clojure you have to.... | - clearly define the problem that needs to be solved | - get other people on the core team to agree that it needs | to be solved - document a number of ways to solve it, | discuss with the community which one will work best - | let these ideas stew for a while, people might change their | minds | | The above constitutes 95% of the work and would typically | take months rather than days. Once all that's done, coding | up the implementation is the easy bit. | sidlls wrote: | I disagree with a good part of the substance of the article. | Publishing open source software incurs a self-imposed | obligation to do much of what Mr. Hickey says nobody is | entitled to, in my opinion. If you don't want that | responsibility, don't publish. | rob_c wrote: | Strongly agree but it won't impact users being users. | | Paying users have made an investment and have something to lose. | Users of free at cost tools and products view that have nothing | to lose so some act very badly. Unfortunately this won't go away | with a rant, but support for fellow devs against bad users is | always worth acknowledging. | capableweb wrote: | One submission in the past with lots of good discussions: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18538123 | 734 points | 2018 | | 281 comments | | One of the main takeaways personally from this post, is the | unique position Clojure (and other lisps) are in, where language | additions can be done as libraries instead of changing the core | of the language. | | Other languages don't (always) have this possibility. | | Taking TypeScript as one example. If 20% of users want to be able | to do something in TypeScript that the language doesn't support, | they either can try to get the change into the core language, or | live without it (or fork it). If it changes, it'll change for | everyone using TypeScript | | But in Clojure (lisps in general), you don't have this | restriction, so modifying the language for your own need, becomes | a lot easier. Lots of work on Clojure is simply done in | libraries, as it's possible and doesn't impact the core of the | language, which everyone shares. | bazoom42 wrote: | TypeScript have multiple packages available which adds macros. | capableweb wrote: | Care to link some of those? Are they macros as in C-macros or | macros as in Lisp-macros? | | Macros in C-like languages (like JavaScript or TypeScript) | tends to be relatively basic text substitution macros, while | in lisp they are part of the core language, and you construct | macros just like you construct normal code. | Scarbutt wrote: | Your whole comments sounds like you are trying to get some kind | of validation for using clojure. | capableweb wrote: | That's strange. Being able to professionally work in Clojure | for the last ~6 years or so is enough validation for me that | Clojure is the right choice (for me). | | Does my comment came across like that because I point out | benefits from using Clojure, or what makes you say that? | snarfy wrote: | It's also true of Forth and derivatives. | moomin wrote: | The thing is, it's technically present, but culture is another | matter. I maintain a Clojure project that ran using a number of | interesting and convenient macros. In practice, it made things | harder for people to read and was unidiomatic. If you want | anyone else to use or modify your code, you'd better stick with | Hickey's vision. | stingraycharles wrote: | Absolutely, and this is being completely ignored in the whole | discussion. We're utterly dependent upon Clojure "core" for | anything to become idiomatic; saying that it's possible to | make anything outside of core and do your own thing is about | as productive as saying "just fork it" about opensource | projects. | | I think that this post by Rich Hickey actually made me | completely lose faith in Clojure's stewardship after about 5 | years. It basically signalled very strongly "we're not | interested in listening to the community", which is fine, but | that doesn't align very well with how long-lived, successful | opensource projects are managed. | | And I say all this as someone who was very actively involved | in some of Clojure's largest opensource projects. | tsuujin wrote: | I just picked up clojure as a hobby project outside of work | and I'm enjoying the language in general so far. I have to | say that reading this rant gives me a bit of doubt about | continuing. | | I actually agree with most of what this guy is saying, but | the delivery is not good. | moomin wrote: | It's an interesting road, and I like Clojure plenty, but | ultimately it's a cul-de-sac. And the reason it's a cul- | de-sac is pretty heavily laid out by the original post. | stingraycharles wrote: | Clojure, the language, and Rich Hickey, the vision, have | had a tremendous impact on my programming career. | Transformations of data as the primary building block for | writing code was such an enlightenment. I absolutely | encourage you to continue your endeavor of learning | Clojure, as it's almost guaranteed to be a net positive. | | It's just the stewardship of the language that is my | biggest problem. It's very anti-community (as evidenced | by this rant), and in general there is a tendency of | "elitist" mentality the more you get into the core | community. | | If you're able to ignore all that, and just do your own | thing, you'll be fine. | tsuujin wrote: | Well, I managed it with the Emacs community, so I guess I | can do the same here lol. | capableweb wrote: | I don't know, the community in general tend to use macros | that are well written. I keep seeing core.async being used | (`go`) in Clojure projects, and also various macros for | writing HTTP servers (compojure being a popular one which | main code interface is a macro `defroutes`). | | ClojureScript projects also routinely add support for making | asynchronous code look synchronous (like `async/await` in | vanilla JavaScript) via macros. shadow-cljs's `js-await` | being one of the well-written ones: | https://github.com/thheller/shadow- | cljs/blob/49fb078b834e64f... | | Usage: (defn my-async-fn [foo] | (js-await [the-result (promise-producing-call foo)] | (doing-something-with-the-result the-result) | (catch failure (prn [:oh-oh failure]))) | | I'd say if adding a macro makes things harder to understand, | you probably need to re-evaluate if you really should have a | macro here, or the interface of the macro. | moomin wrote: | Yeah, there's a couple of widely understood idioms like | global static configuration and adding async/await. But the | macros I'm talking about were very simple, well-defined | things that exist in other languages. They were just | unfamiliar. | | In any event, they're ripped out now. But ultimately macros | offer a lot more in theory than in practice. | dgb23 wrote: | And it shows. Some of the more impressive and powerful | libraries have incredibly ergonomic and clear interfaces, | because the language let's you simply do more with it. | matheusmoreira wrote: | I'm not familiar with clojure or its libraries. Can you post | some examples of well designed interfaces? | capableweb wrote: | If you're not familiar with lisps in general, it might be | hard to grok the differences between lisp-macros (as used | in Clojure) and "normal" macros you see in other (non-lisp | [sans Elixir I think]) languages. | | But, if you are familiar already, and just wanna see | examples of neat macros that makes the API nicer than what | a function could provide, here are a few: | | - https://github.com/clojure/core.async/blob/master/example | s/w... | | - https://github.com/weavejester/compojure | | - https://github.com/ptaoussanis/timbre | | - https://github.com/krisajenkins/yesql | | Furthermore, macros enables APIs like this, that would be | impossible to have in JavaScript for example: | (spy :info (* 5 4 3 2 1)) => 120 %> | 15-Jun-13 19:19:13 localhost INFO [my-app.core] - (* 5 4 3 | 2 1) => 120 | | `spy` here doesn't just print what the ` _` form is | returning, but the form itself too. You wouldn 't be able | to achieve this without macros, as the evaluation of the | `_` form would happen before it gets passed to `spy`, so | the initial form is already gone. Instead, a macro received | the very code you pass into it, so you can print it, | inspect it, rewrite it or whatever. | pharmakom wrote: | TLDR: take it or leave it | | And quite right too. | capableweb wrote: | Yup. The snippet I like best (which can act as a TLDR as well) | from this is the following: | | > If you have expectations (of others) that aren't being met, | those expectations are your own responsibility. You are | responsible for your own needs. If you want things, make them. | b3morales wrote: | Depending on what you want for your project, though, this | isn't unilateral. If you want a supportive community of | engaged users, you must engage with them in return. It's | necessary in any relationship to accommodate or at least | recognize the needs and desires of the other party. You | cannot expect them to stay involved if your answer to | everything is "take it or leave it". | | I hasten to add that I am speaking in general. I am not | familiar with Clojure and I am not saying that Rich Hickey | and the Clojure project behave one way or the other. | pessimizer wrote: | People are actually afraid to say that directly for fear | they'll be forked out of their own project. It's a legitimate | fear, but it's also a fair fork. OSS maintainers are not | responsible to us, but neither are we responsible to them. | That's not how gifts work. If your maintainer is having an | emotional breakdown or just wants to do something else, you | route around it. | | Other licenses are available. | dgb23 wrote: | I think it's more than that. The quality of a foundational | project, like a language, hinges in very large parts on | stability and long term decisions. Saying "no" is the primary | defense tool here. | | It is something that I've come to appreciate over the years, | but didn't really get initially. A message like this one gives | me great confidence in trusting the project. | TootsMagoon wrote: | You are not entitled to define what Open Source is for me. | eminent101 wrote: | Open Source is already defined here: https://opensource.org/osd | bastardoperator wrote: | I'm not going to impose stupid distribution terms on my users | or force them to copy files around. It's dumb. If I'm making | the code available to the public then just let the public | have it. This post looks like it was written by an attorney | not someone that cares about sharing ideas open and freely. | eminent101 wrote: | > it was written by an attorney not someone that cares | about sharing ideas open and freely | | Of course it was written by attorneys. Do you know how FSF, | DFSG and OSD even began? They found a legal solution to the | problem of sharing code while guaranteeing certain rights | for the user who use the code! The open source licenses are | written by attorneys too. | | You are free to distribute under whatever terms you want | but your code does not become open source just because it | is shared with the public. Some countries do not even | recognise "public domain". In such countries it becomes | necessary to attach a valid open source license to your | code. That's why the various open source licenses are | drafted by attorneys to ensure they can provide appropriate | rights to the user of the code. | Destiner wrote: | Thing is, different people have different goals for open | source, and that's perfectly fine. | zackmorris wrote: | Ya that was my feeling too. I love most aspects of Clojure and | especially ClojureScript, but his post feels like projection to | me. When someone calls someone entitled, it just means that | they feel a lack of entitlement in their own life, probably | because they are being taken for granted. | | To truly transcend in programming or any other discipline, we | must first conquer ourselves. Which might mean letting go of | expectation, especially from others. If bug and feature | requests are piling up to the point that they distract from the | work, then maybe their piling up has value. Being mindful of | that doesn't mean solving it. It could be more about | delegation, or communication, or setting boundaries, or any | number of things. | | I sympathize with him tremendously though. I don't even have a | public body of work to showcase, or a way that leads to fame or | fortune. Yet I still feel tremendous pressure to perform some | days. His post doesn't read too terribly in the face of that | kind of pressure. | IncRnd wrote: | > The only people entitled to say how open source 'ought' to work | are people who run projects, and the scope of their entitlement | extends only to their own projects. | | Yet, you believe you are entitled to say how all of open source | 'ought' to work. Does it refer to everyone but you? | mvc wrote: | It's been a while since I read this rant but I suspect you have | projected the " _all_ of open source " into your paraphrasing | of what he said and that in fact he never purported to speak | for all open source. | IncRnd wrote: | You are projecting your beliefs upon the structure of the | article. In the actual article, Cognitect wasn't mentioned | until five paragraphs later. The first five paragraphs talked | exactly about open source in general terms not limited to | Cognitech or to Clojure. What I quoted was the very first | sentence. | gfodor wrote: | Did you read what you quoted? | IncRnd wrote: | What I pointed out through a rhetorical question is that the | article's first sentence tells others their opinions of open | source are limited, but the premise of that statement is that | the author is separate from that rule and by the act of | writing this statement is setting a broad opinion which | others are not allowed to have, due to the same statement | imposing a limitation on them. | | I was pointing out that the first sentence of the article | contains a contradiction in its premise. | gfodor wrote: | This isn't a contradiction - the claim is that the only | entitlement one has with open source is that which is | outlined in the licenses. This is objectively the floor | across all projects. From there, entitlements are granted | by project authors and sit outside those granted by the | licenses. The error, which is sadly common, is to presume | entitlements of the latter kind follow necessarily from the | former. | pessimizer wrote: | The problem is that this is relying on equivocation | around the word "entitlement." One type of "entitlement" | is an actual right that you can fight over in court, it's | called the license. The other type of "entitlement" is | just a pejorative euphemism for the word "expectation." | By slipping back and forth between those meanings, you | can create the impression of a proof that people's | expectations are a type of illegal assault. | lamontcg wrote: | I'd still like the ability on GitHub to easily lock down PRs and | issues to a trusted set of a dozen or two collaborators. | | I really don't like this idea that because I open source some | code that I'm working on for free that I become the help desk and | abuse sink for anyone who can figure out how to register on | GitHub. | mixmastamyk wrote: | Can you not ban truly abusive individuals from a project? | That's surprising. | | On the other hand, ignoring the merely annoying is free. And | happens to me all the time. | lamontcg wrote: | There's a tax every time you need to read someone's pleading | showerthought and close it because you don't have the time or | don't care to do it. You still have to read it all, you still | get annoyed by it all. Unless you're a total emotional robot | none of it is actually free. | | It is also interesting that I'll get downvoted and criticized | for wanting to run my own project this way. As the first | sentence of the linked note puts it: | | > The only people entitled to say how open source 'ought' to | work are people who run projects, and the scope of their | entitlement extends only to their own projects. | | Lots of people out there seem to want to force me to | collaborate with the world, for my own good, not just open my | source code up for use. All I want to do is limit | collaboration on my own solo free-as-in-beer project. | mixmastamyk wrote: | You don't have to read it all. Also I think you can turn | off issues/wiki on github as well. | capableweb wrote: | Unfortunately (and for seemingly no reason), you can't | seem to turn off pull requests. | yieldcrv wrote: | A lot of people follow the mentality that because something is | free that it means no criticism or improvement or expectation is | valid. | | That is disingenuous because there are competitive forces just as | much as a payment based system. Most things we like about open | source are a direct result of that. | | People compete for personal clout, for community clout, future | employment status, future business partnerships | dimitar wrote: | So what I notice is that there seems to be a spectrum between | feature-conservative and feature-enthusiast open-source projects. | | RH doesn't name any names but there seem to be more feature- | enthusiast projects out there. I wonder if someone could name an | example and see the pros and cons of the two approaches. | casion wrote: | RH doesn't name names, but this is a response to | behaviour/incident with Timothy Baldridge. | dimitar wrote: | I meant names of projects that seem to have trouble with | feature bloat and code churn, not people. | Heliosmaster wrote: | His reply has been deleted from GitHub, but can be found on | the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20190206101 | 354/https://gist.gith... | capableweb wrote: | What's missing is what triggered Hickey's post (linked in | this submission). | | I think this is the original post from Timothy Baldridge: | "Contributing to Clojure" - https://gist.github.com/halgari | /c17f378718cbd2fd82324002133e... | | > So when I say in passing "if it doesn't matter to Rich, | it won't get in", it's not a slight, it's a statement of | fact. People are limited, and must prioritize, your ticket | will most likely be deprioritized unless it's directly | related to whatever Rich is currently working on. | | > In addition make sure every assumption, every detail | you've thought of, every possible side-effect of your code, | is mentioned in the ticket. Because if you forget to | mention something, Rich will most likely catch it, and hand | the ticket back to you with a comment of "did you think | about X", that will add another few weeks into your dev | time. | | > Now begins the "personal opinion" section, what I've | stated here are the facts as I've worked on Clojure and the | core projects. I got tired of the constant back-and-forth. | Never being able to talk to the decision maker directly | aside through a 3rd party. Problems that could be solved | via a 10 minute meeting blow up into months of back and | forth discussions, and if any party gets busy and forgets | to get back to the other about the ticket, that process | just takes longer. | | The TLDR of the post seems to have been that it takes to | long for him to get in changes that he cares about, while | he feels like the Core team is focusing on things that are | not as important (implicitly at least). | | On a happy note, it seems Baldridge is at least | acknowledging his missteps with the whole situation with | the whole "Thanks for everything Rich, and please don't | take my current leave-of-absence from the community as | anger. It was out of anger last week, but now I'm using it | as a way to reflect" part. | casion wrote: | The reply is on github, you have to click the "load earlier | comments" button. | capableweb wrote: | I guess one good example (that was mentioned just yesterday | here on HN) would be Flask vs FastAPI: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31953470 - "There are no | open issues or pull requests on Flask " | | Quick count finds that FastAPI has 48422 lines of code, while | Flask has 9995. Flask just achieved "Zero standing issues/PRs" | while FastAPI has 1.1K open issues and ~500 open PRs. | | Large surface area/API quickly leads to be overwhelmed when | you're trying to maintain it. Adding new features/fixing | existing ones becomes harder as well. | | Best bet to make sure something is maintainable over time is to | add as little as possible to it, and if you really have to, | make sure you're also removing something at the same time. | | Otherwise you need a massive team just to be able to "survive" | and not making things rot. | | There is this blogpost as well about the "half-life of code": | https://erikbern.com/2016/12/05/the-half-life-of-code.html | | Someone run that tool on the Clojure codebase as well, and it | really shows how well the Clojure codebase has been written, as | most code that was initially written is still there and does | what it needs, without having to be rewritten. | dimitar wrote: | Good point! As for the churn tool, it was for the history of | Clojure paper with a comparison to Scala: https://twitter.com | /thesephist/status/1472644432621150220?la... | | I don't know if Scala or FastAPI suffer from feature creep | though. | capableweb wrote: | Thanks for finding that, I knew it was out there somewhere | :) | [deleted] | kazinator wrote: | > _As a user of something open source you are not thereby | entitled to anything at all._ | | Wait; I'm not even entitled to software not doing anything | blatantly illegal on purpose, or perpetrating a privacy violation | without my knowledge and consent? | | Also, "open source" has an even greater focus on getting paid | than "free software". Surely, if people are paid, certain | entitlements exist between certain people, even if none of them | happen to be the author. | | E.g. if you use a phone that runs on a Linux kernel, you may be | entitled to kernel security updates, at least for a certain | support period. | | By the way, as a user of closed source, you're not entitled to a | heck of a lot, either; according to the reams of text in a | typical license agreement. If the thing causes data loss, too bad | for you, says the disclaimer. | sbuttgereit wrote: | > Wait; I'm not even entitled to software not doing anything | blatantly illegal on purpose, or perpetrating a privacy | violation without my knowledge and consent? | | Tor is an open source project and I very well expect that, in | some jurisdictions, what Tor is explicitly trying to do... on | purpose... would be considered illegal. I expect that the | people running the Tor Project know that. I could even | speculate that some Tor Project team members are hopeful that | their effort facilitates private communication in the very | places where such communication is likely to run most afoul of | the law. Worse than that, laws are often ambiguous, fuzzy, and | contradictory within a jurisdiction, let alone between | different jurisdictions. | | So what does that mean to the entitlement that open source | software does nothing blatantly illegal? I guess you can claim | it, but I wouldn't expect much to come of it even assuming the | project is being run with good intentions, nor would I count on | it matching my expectations for same. I think it's better to | not only discount legality as an entitlement, but not even hold | it as an expectation. Legality is a decision point for the | potential user, not a user entitlement the developers are duty | bound to deliver to any one user. | kazinator wrote: | > _Tor is an open source project and I very well expect that, | in some jurisdictions, what Tor is explicitly trying to do... | on purpose... would be considered illegal._ | | But that's something the user wants, as a feature. It may be | the user who is deemed to be doing something illegal. | capableweb wrote: | > Wait; I'm not even entitled to software not doing anything | blatantly illegal on purpose, or perpetrating a privacy | violation without my knowledge and consent? | | Exactly! Try to reading through the licenses of the code you | pull in, and it'll be evident. Here is a excerpt from the MIT | license | | > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY | KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED | | If the code you randomly pulled down from GitHub puts your | computer on fire, you're the only one responsible for that | happening. | | > Also, "open source" has an even greater focus on getting paid | than "free software". | | Does it? Which Open Source license has any focus on getting | paid at all? You seem to mix up "development/funding model" | with "distribution license", where Open Source is the latter, | not the former. | | > Surely, if people are paid, certain entitlements exist | between certain people | | Depends on the funding model. Open Collective, Patreon and | GitHub Sponsors are all donations, where you donate without any | expectations of getting anything at all back. | | > E.g. if you use a phone that runs on a Linux kernel, you may | be entitled to kernel security updates, at least for a certain | support period. | | Sure, you probably are, but not from the Linux kernel, but from | whoever you bought the phone from/your carrier. This article is | about the kind of people write software like the Kernel, not | the people who sell your products using FOSS. | kazinator wrote: | 1. Not all the content of a warranty disclaimer holds in all | legal jurisdictions. Giving people free stuff doesn't absolve | you of liability for harm. Not everyone who uses some open | source thing is aware of it; it may have been installed by | someone else. | | 2. By open source having "more of a focus on getting paid", | what I mean is that the term taken over and capitalized as | Open Source by some people in the 1990' who wanted to | distance themselves from the GNU project's rhetoric about | freedom in order to emphasize the commercial viability of | free software development. They formed something called the | Open Source Definition. It's fair to call having more of a | "focus on getting paid" than free software in the GNU sense. | | 3. Not all money for work on open source is donation. People | working on it sometimes get regular salaries. Customers | sometimes pay for it in the form of commercial products. | | 4. Chances are high that whoever you buy your phone from does | kernel development. Just about the only way they could avoid | it would be to license the SoC/board from someone else who | does (and then _they_ are almost certainly entitled to | support). | jeroenhd wrote: | > If the code you randomly pulled down from GitHub puts your | computer on fire, you're the only one responsible for that | happening. | | That's what's the license says, but your local laws and | regulations might disagree, and your license does not | overrule the law. | | Distributing malware is illegal and malware is defined | differently in different countries. If you intend to upload | sketchy code, make sure you've read up on what constitutes as | cybercrime where you live because one of your victims may go | to the police. | | To make a flawed comparison: setting up a stand with cookies | that happen to be poisoned next to a sign that reads "cookies | free to be eaten at your own risk" don't necessarily let you | go free when someone ends up in a hospital. | | Now, as a counter argument, your average commercial OS is | packed full of what would've constituted spyware twenty years | ago, so you're probably free to package some types of | malware. I don't know if what the colors.js guy did was | illegal (at least he reminded people oftthe dangers of npm, | which everyone then proceeded to forget) but I think he got | away without a lawsuit. I doubt he'd gotten away would he | have lived where I live, though. | bee_rider wrote: | I wonder if anyone has actually been charged based on | malicious open source contributions. Off the cuff, it seems | unlikely -- the person whose computer was damaged would | have to navigate multiply jurisdictions and explain | something technical to a court, likely as an individual. | kazinator wrote: | The precursors to such a situation don't have to be | exceptionaly unusual. It could be someone working in a | language that is not normally compiled ahead of time and | shipped in binary form (e.g. malicious Javascript). Even | if not accompanied by a license, the code just has to use | pieces of some open source work so that it is a derived | work. That malware author is then effectively a | contributing author, whether aware of it or not. | | > _the person whose computer was damaged would have to | navigate multiply jurisdictions and explain something | technical to a court, likely as an individual._ | | Easily done if the person is actually a mega corporation. | kenbolton wrote: | The _only_ thing to which you are entitled-by definition-is | access to the source. It is your responsibility to verify what | the source does. | | The "getting paid" notion is off-topic and has nothing to do | with the source being open. If I provide commercial support for | someone and implement a solution using open source software, I | am the one providing the support and I have no expectation that | the original authors will hold my hand. | mirekrusin wrote: | You're not even entitled to have access to the source. | | If repository is down or if you don't know how to use git and | demand updates being sent to you as zip files on your email - | your demands mean nothing, you are not entitled to be given | access to the source code. | | You have _permission_ to use it in some license limited way | and that's all. | | If you _use_ open source code (ie. as part of your product), | you may be _required_ to also provide source code, | attribution etc. | kazinator wrote: | Most free software licenses don't concern themselves with | _use_ , except that they may make it clear that use is not | restricted in any way. A license that restricts use in any | way is probably not free. | | > _you are not entitled to be given access to the source | code._ | | If you're the user of a binary image someone spun from a | GNU licensed program, actually you _are_ entitled to that, | if it is the Affero license (AGPL), you may be entitled to | source code access even if you just use the thing as an | online service. Specifically, you 're entitled to access to | the source code of the modified version that you're | actually using. | | > _If you _use_ open source code (ie. as part of your | product), you may be _required_ to also provide source | code, attribution etc._ | | That's redistribution. If you redistribute some kinds of | open source code in a product, you may have to provide | source code, and that's even if that code is never called. | The presence of that code in the image is the key thing, | not whether it is used. Use occurs on the target system, by | the end user. | jeroenhd wrote: | That depends on the licence, though. GPL3 requires that | obtaining a license should not be harder than obtaining the | binary distribution. If you use some kind of obscure | version control system for your source code but link the | binaries in your website, you're entitled to the source | code in a similarly easy way. | | The developer could exercise their rights and insist on | sending you a DVD with the source code on it (and make you | pay for materials+shipping) but throwing up difficult | burdens is clearly forbidden by the GPL. | | Some more extreme licenses grant you, as a user and as a | developer, a lot of rights, but also a lot of burdens. I | don't think the stricter ideological licenses such as GPL | are used much by people who distribute their own code and | then decide to make life difficult for their users, though. | It's likely that the only cases where this rings true are | people relying on GPL code that then want to avoid | fulfilling their obligations to their customers. | smashah wrote: | open source is not just one thing. I think of it like a bunch of | tribes loosely operating in amongst each other with some shared | tenets (followed as necessary) and their internal own cultures. | | But that's the same as any organization. In normal business, | you're meant to follow the main tenet of "maximize profit", | "treat customers well". Businesses follow those tenets as they | see fit. There's no reason for every open source project to be | cookie cutter. | [deleted] | smsm42 wrote: | I dislike this kind of semantic bickering. Yes, technically "open | source" once meant only the distribution model of source | availability. A lot of time passed since, and now "open source" | means something else - a certain social phenomenon with its | community, rules, culture and mores. Lamenting that people have | grown to expect this is pointless. | | Yes, some people can be over-entitled towards open source - and | it's the right thing to push back against them and remind them | they wants aren't the law of the universe. But it's also wrong | that "open source" is _just_ a licensing mechanism. It 's a | culture, and how people behave forms this culture. That doesn't | create entitlement, but it creates certain expectations. No one | is obliged to deliver on those expectations - especially if they | are exaggerated - but I don't think it makes sense to deny they | exist, and usually accounting for at least some of them leads to | better results than ignoring them. | jeandejean wrote: | It's a bit annoying to go through that post without knowing the | context of why he's so pissed... Honestly, Open Source is a great | source of frustration exactly because they're managed by | benevolent dictators that are more often the latter while | forgetting the former. | | Yeah sure that's their piece of code and you're free to fork if | you don't like it, but why open sourcing your project in the | first place if it is not to have a benevolent ear to potential | contributors, in other terms to create a community? An Open | Source project without the community is just futile. | bdefore wrote: | > why open sourcing your project in the first place if it is | not to have a benevolent ear to potential contributors, in | other terms to create a community? | | one reason: providing code that others may learn or benefit | from even while you recognize that you won't have time to | manage a community. | jeandejean wrote: | I definitely understand there are reasons outside of that, | but you should be ready (and happy) for a community to build | up on your release of interesting Open Source software. | bdefore wrote: | it's quite a thrill! until the months fly by and you get a | particular kind of tone on an issue opened on your | repository for a thing you can't devote time to anymore. | and that burn can scar. | asn1parse wrote: | this post is representative of the mental illness thats endemic | today. First of all, I can start open source project for any | reason that I want including all the reasons that he listed that | I'm not entitled to. There are no rules and nobody can dictate it | either here or elsewhere. Secondly it seems that your lack of | education and understanding has led you to this spot and I | encourage you to seek more education probably outside the area | that you consider your area of expertise. Finally the author of | this post made the vital mistake of having expectations of other | people, this is the prime mistake most people make and leads to | their unhappiness. | sidlls wrote: | Sorry, but no. Publishing open source software incurs a self- | imposed obligation to the community to support it--and that means | most of what Mr. Hickey claims aren't entitlements--or else | explicitly abdicate responsibility (and thus control) of it. | | There are of course no _legal_ obligations (unless the specific | license of the project specifies otherwise). But this isn 't | about that. It's about the expectations and norms that develop in | a community. | LudwigNagasena wrote: | It makes sense, but it sounds a bit too radical. As one | children's book says, "you become responsible forever for what | you've tamed." | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | > You are not entitled to the attention of others. You are not | entitled to having value attached to your complaints. You are not | entitled to this explanation. | | I wish I understood this earlier in my life. | tomxor wrote: | Are you able to shed some light on where the entitlement is | coming from? | | Asking as someone who has honestly never held such assumptions, | I remember quite clearly my initial instinct towards various | FOSS projects as "their castle their rules", I'm kinda puzzled | why anyone would think otherwise... but this is a long time ago | in internet years. | throwaway17_17 wrote: | I am inclined to think this a 'generational' issue. For those | individuals that were using open source before the explosion | of the modern internet, open source software was something we | could seek out to then use for our own ends. Also, the people | who wrote that software were 'publishing' it just to get it | out there for anyone to use if those people found it useful. | | Conversely, people who started using open source after the | internet exploded, and I think particularly, once being an | open source maintainer was seen as an achievement and goal, | the attitude changed. Individual users of the software were | building things depending on the OSS and felt that their use | of the OSS code implied a contract for continued development | of that dependency. This feeling is made worse by fiscally | gigantic corporations pushing 'oss' products and those | corporations acting like their continuing to support their | product is analogous to a solo dev putting a vim plugin on | github. The reality of wide spread large 'oss' products and | the implied (and often maliciously relied upon) personal | obligations of producing OSS have led to the current state. | That state being users of some OSS assuming that their usage | of the software means the author owes them some obligation by | virtue of their need. | | This whole issue is made worse by large organizations getting | social credit and positive marketing by releasing 'oss' | products. This leads to conflation of individuals releasing | code to benefit the commons vs. organizations doing so to | capture markets, gain publicity, etc. | ynniv wrote: | Perhaps this is a hot take, but Rich's headline is wrong. His | argument hinges on the idea that software chooses to be open | source out of altruism: someone created something of value, | and rather than requiring payment they gifted it to the | world. But if you have ever been at an organization that | makes open source software, there is always a calculation | that at least suggests that the company is better served by | using an open source license. Part of that calculation is | people filing bug reports, proposing improvements, and in | general being satisfied with the library. Some requests are | too niche, and some arguments too baseless, but if the people | using open source don't participate at all we often say that | something isn't really open source at all (see Apple's | "Public Source"). When that happens, people tend to make | forks, build competing libraries, or give up and move on. | | Open Source isn't all about you, but it is a little bit about | you. | bdefore wrote: | > but if the people using open source don't participate at | all we often say that something isn't really open source at | all | | i cannot say who the 'we' is, but i suspect in some circles | this may hold true. i do challenge that this is a | reasonably held belief because it is an expansion of the | historical responsibilities generally held towards those | who would wish to open up their source for others. it may | even suppress how much code is openly shared (since most | engineers don't enjoy being community managers) | ynniv wrote: | It's an old debate, and I'm not familiar with the current | usage. Stallman explains: "The two terms | describe almost the same category of software, but they | stand for views based on fundamentally different values. | Open source is a development methodology; free software | is a social movement." | | Clojure is Open Source by this definition, since it is | developed by a collective group, as opposed to a | permissibly licensed but static artifact. People are | welcome to run their projects however they like, but the | entitlement comes from the philosophy that Open Source is | more than a contract, and is better when there is | participation. Labels matter because they set | expectations - Apple does not call their Public Source | "Open Source", and people don't complain because they | understand the difference. | stavros wrote: | People (me included) think that publishing and maintaining | software is an implicit guarantee of (or attempt at) some | level of proper behavior. When the software doesn't work as | it should, people feel that that guarantee has been violated. | | Many contribute fixes and actively improve the software, but | many post entitled comments. | robonerd wrote: | There is no such thing as an "implicit guarantee". | Guarantees are affirmative assurances, they can't be | implicit. | bsuvc wrote: | > People (me included) think that publishing and | maintaining software is an implicit guarantee of (or | attempt at) some level of proper behavior | | Except there is no implicit guarantee. | | For example the Apache 2.0 license outright says it, so | there is no argument about "implicit guarantees" | | https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 | | 7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable | law or agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work | (and each Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS | IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, | either express or implied, including, without limitation, | any warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, | MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You | are solely responsible for determining the appropriateness | of using or redistributing the Work and assume any risks | associated with Your exercise of permissions under this | License | stavros wrote: | I agree. | b3morales wrote: | On the other hand you cannot create and maintain a | community purely by contract. | matheusmoreira wrote: | > You are not entitled to the attention of others. | | I wish advertisers would understand that. | GChevalier wrote: | I admit I chuckled at "You are not entitled to this | explanation" while reading the article. How far can it go xD | Buttons840 wrote: | He's not entitled to me reading his rant, or changing my | behavior based upon it. Is this deeper? | | You know, I don't think I've ever participated in a | conversation that used the word "entitlement" and came away a | better person. | matheusmoreira wrote: | I agree, the non-stop one-sided accusations of entitlement | didn't seem very productive to me. I wonder if some day | someone will write a post about things maintainers aren't | entitled to. I can think of several things. | | This is in no way exclusive to software. It's people in | general. Dealing with people is extremely difficult. At | least software developers aren't likely to get sued over | these complaints. | Buttons840 wrote: | Yes, the word "entitlement" is mainly used in response to | widely acceptable behaviors, and is almost always a | passive-aggressive escalation. | | I may not be entitled to be listened to when I speak, but | it's still reasonable for me to speak with the | expectation that I will be listened to. If I do speak, | it's not an aggressive claim that I'm entitled to speak | and you must listen. | asib wrote: | That sounds like a you problem more than a general rule | that using the word engenders unproductive conversation. | geoduck14 wrote: | >How far can it go | | You aren't entitled to know that ;) | [deleted] | monksy wrote: | To some extend of being a human you are. Are you entitled to | expect things to go exactly your way? No. Are you entitled to | get what you want without trade? No. | | However, the whole claim of "we are going to do everything we | want" and you're going to give us appreciation and some kind of | resources (admiration, money, time, commits) is just selfish. | | Humans are social animals, what you create and put out is | mention to be used by someone. It's not just wankery that is | there for people to not get something of it. | aeturnum wrote: | Everyone has their own frame of reference and their own opinion | on what is right or wrong in a particular situation. There | could also be a singular objective hierarchy of morality or | righteousness - but each person is going to have to come to | their own conclusion about if that exists or not. | | I think the philosophy of engagement they outline there is | internally consistent, but I don't think it supports where they | go next: | | > _If you think Cognitect is not doing anything for the | community, or is not listening to the community, you are simply | wrong._ | | It's consistent to say that you do things for your own reasons | and other people are not entitled to any engagement w/r/t their | opinions on your work - but then also you are not entitled to | anyone else agreeing to your opinions either. You can have all | the opinions you want about your own work - but you're not | entitled to anyone agreeing with them. The idea that doing the | work should mean something for you is, after all, just another | opinion. | | Alternatively, you could proceed from an ethic of building a | shared understanding of creative community. Then you get to say | things like "you are wrong if you don't think we are helping" - | because you have a definition of community that you're | following and the work you are doing is structured to support | that definition. But then complaints do have value and | standing, because you're promoting a kind of social contract. | Not all complaints have standing ofc - but certainly some will! | bachmeier wrote: | As much as I respect Rich Hickey, it's hard to say anything | positive about this. It has basically nothing to do with open | source. It's _entirely_ specific to how he chooses to run his own | projects. | | Open source is not a gift in the sense that you "get what they | give you". You are entitled to the source code. You are entitled | to modify the code. You are entitled to distribute your | modifications. | | Are you entitled to be part of the development process and to | state your opinions about how things are going? Yes...if those | are the rules of the project. The thing is, that has nothing to | do with open source, it's always project-specific, so the full | post largely doesn't make any sense as a comment on open source. | wildmanx wrote: | > The thing is, that has nothing to do with open source, it's | always project-specific, so the full post largely doesn't make | any sense as a comment on open source. | | That's how I read this article. He argues that it's a | misconception that "open source" _implies_ the entitlements | that he rejects. There may be projects which offer such | entitlements (though it 's unlikely phrased like that), but | other projects don't, and nobody should assume they are | entitled to anything just because of the "open source" label -- | beyond the rights guaranteed by the chosen license. | | He argues for freedom. The programmers freedom to ignore | anything beyond the license, and the users freedom to go choose | a different project if they don't like the choices of some | project. That's also what you are saying. | bachmeier wrote: | I don't agree. Two sentences in particular drive me crazy: | | > As a user of something open source you are not thereby | entitled to anything at all. You are not entitled to | contribute. | | The first sentence is wrong according to any standard | definition of open source. The second is specific to the | project. It may or may not be true. He's making strong | statements about how we should view _open source_ rather than | his project: | | > The time to re-examine preconceptions about open source is | right now. Morale erosion amongst creators is a real thing. | | That's a statement about open source, and it's not filler | that he threw in without much thought. It's at the core of | his argument. | crispyambulance wrote: | I think the context of Clojure as a project and a community | needs to be taken into account when reading Hickey's "you | are not entitled to anything" piece. | | Clojure as a community is _VERY_ welcoming, it has a | healthy level of discussion, a wide variety of users, and | many innovative projects. I was surprised when I first read | that gist in 2018, but I've come to believe it's a reaction | to some people who perhaps had made demands or | public/private gripes about Clojure in a way that rubbed | Hickey the wrong way. | | He perhaps could have communicated his sentiments | differently. It seems a bit "scorched earth" to me. | Admittedly, he doesn't say exactly who/what he's reacting | to, so maybe it's justified. | | But IMHO, for every raging a-hole who need to be told to | slow their roll, there are probably a few earnest, well- | meaning folks who will think twice about reaching out and | contributing with valuable ideas, for fear of crossing the | "you-are-not-entitled-to-anything" line. | [deleted] | [deleted] | monsieurbanana wrote: | I think you have a wrong definition of entitled. You're | never entitled to make contributions to any open source | project. Any such project may or may not give you that | right, but it's not something you're entitled, it's | explicitly given to you. | bachmeier wrote: | If so, then Merriam-Webster is also confused: | | > having a right to certain benefits or privileges | | The right to contribute is a property of the project, not | a property of open source, which has nothing to say on | how projects are run. And for the record, I don't agree | with his project management style. | mpyne wrote: | > not a property of open source, which has nothing to say | on how projects are run | | If open source does not require that a project accept | external contributions, then Hickey is right to say that | you are not _entitled_ to contribute just by virtue of | being open source. | | You're right that this is a more to do with the project | in question than whether it's open source, but open | source _does_ compel projects to do other things. So it | is not weird for Rich to clarify for users of his open | source project that its being open source doesn 't compel | that project to accept external contributions, in the way | that being open source compels them to distribute the | software. | matheusmoreira wrote: | I agree with this but I don't really blame people for | assuming they have the right to contribute code anyway. | There are developers out there who _directly challenge_ | others to contribute when they say things like "patches | welcome" in response to feature requests or bug reports. | Now people aren't entitled to contribute? Makes no sense | to me to be honest. | | Only thing worse than submitting a patch and being | ignored is watching someone else commit the feature or | fix in spite of the contribution. | kgwgk wrote: | > The second is specific to the project. | | Therefore it's correct to say that being a user of | something opensourse doesn't give you a right to | contribute. | | Otherwise it's like claiming that it's wrong to say that | "as a US citizen you're not entitled to use the Air Force | One" because the president is a US citizen and has the | right to use it. | MereInterest wrote: | I think it depends on whether "contribute" refers to a | specific official repository managed by a specific | project, or to the general problem meant to be solved by | the codebase. Open source doesn't give the right to | contribute to a specific repo, but it does give the right | to fork a project. That fork is a contribution to the | general problem. | casion wrote: | > it does give the right to fork a project | | This is license specific. You can create an open source | project which does not allow forking. | | Edit: Notably it seems some commenters here confuse the | idea that FLOSS will allow for forking but open source | does not necessarily do so. | mpyne wrote: | > Edit: Notably it seems some commenters here confuse the | idea that FLOSS will allow for forking but open source | does not necessarily do so. | | This is not a confusion on their part, but on yours. | "open source" is defined as it is deliberately, in | response to organizations trying to confuse their users | about the terms of the software they've offered. What you | see today is the outcomes of years of debate from decades | ago, and trying to have it mean something different would | require a similar debate to change well-settled terms. | | If you want to talk about software where the source is | available but may not be forked or redistributed, use | terms like "source available" (which has its own | Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source- | available_software, showing that this isn't just my term | or those of the other commenters here). | johannes1234321 wrote: | > Edit: Notably it seems some commenters here confuse the | idea that FLOSS will allow for forking but open source | does not necessarily do so. | | this depends on your definition if open source. OSI's | definition of open source states | | """ | | 3. Derived Works | | The license must allow modifications and derived works, | and must allow them to be distributed under the same | terms as the license of the original software. """ | https://opensource.org/osd | | Which allows forking. I don't think that any definition | of open source not allowing that have a wide spread | support. | | Aside from the software license there is the question on | trademark licensing. Some projects like Mozilla are quite | strict on that, that however doesn't prevent forking | Firefox, but just requires using a different name (like | IceWeasle) | casion wrote: | If it "depends on your definition", then it would appear | that you agree with me when I say "does not necessarily | do so". | pessimizer wrote: | It does not necessarily do so if you make up your own | thing and label it open source rather than using the | standard, intelligible, non-deceptive definition. For | example, if you name your dog "Open Source," that doesn't | even give me the right to pet it. | | But I don't think anybody is interested in talking about | your dog. | MereInterest wrote: | It is license specific, and if forking is not allowed | then it is not an open source license [0]. I consider | "Open source" and "FLOSS" as equivalent terms, since | "open source" as a term was proposed as an equivalent | term to avoid negative connotations of "free" as low | quality or not worth paying for[1]. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open- | source_software#... | | [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www | .openso... | CuriousSkeptic wrote: | The L for "libre" in FLOSS may be to avoid negative | connotations of "free" as low quality or not worth paying | for. | | The link you referenced are talking about an entirely | different conflict, and it is very much not meant to be | equivalent. Open Source was all about distancing from the | political ideas associated with free software and the GNU | project. | | Edit: A text by the other side of that conflict | | https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for- | freedom.htm... | fuzzzerd wrote: | It depends on your definition of contribute. You aren't | entitled to have your PR merged to the main project, but | you are entitled to fork the project and make your changes | over there. The first is contributing directly to the | project, while the second is contributing to open source at | large. I believe the author was referring to project | specific contributions. | mkoubaa wrote: | The best explanation I've heard is that OSS is free as in | puppy, not free as in beer | zozbot234 wrote: | > Are you entitled to be part of the development process and to | state your opinions about how things are going? Yes...if those | are the rules of the project. | | You can always fork the project if you disagree with how it's | being maintained (or not maintained, as is the case often | enough). Right to Fork is integral to FLOSS. | casion wrote: | Integral to FLOSS, but not integral to open source. | imaltont wrote: | OSS part of FLOSS stands for open source software. It is an | integral part of free software as defined by the FSF, and | to open source as defined by the OSI. Any other usages of | the term(s) is either ill-informed or malicious in an | attempt to make it more ambiguous. | miloignis wrote: | Integral to Open Source too, I believe. Anything else would | just be Source Available or something. If I can't modify | and share, it's not very open. | nemetroid wrote: | Rich is making the same argument as you are: a project being | open source does not determine whether users are entitled to be | part of the development process for that project. | ungamedplayer wrote: | >Are you entitled to be part of the development process and to | state your opinions about how things are going? Yes...if those | are the rules of the project. | | Open source isn't a a code of conduct. It is a licensed though. | The subject and title is not about random projects, it's about | clojure and open source. | bachmeier wrote: | > it's about clojure and open source | | No, it's about Clojure. It's not in any way about open | source. Software can be open source no matter how the person | writing it runs their projects. | Heliosmaster wrote: | I would phrase it that open source is just about the | license of code, not about anything else, and definitely | not about how changes are applied to such code. | | Usually, it just practically means that you are allowed to | make changes and redistribute them, but without giving any | guarantees on how these changes are going to be made | available to others. | dahart wrote: | Maybe it would be better to understand the context of events | that lead to the letter than argue with generic platitudinal | responses about what open source is that are totally debatable, | e.g., you are only entitled to whatever source code they give | you and nothing more, and you are only entitled to distribute | your modifications if the open source license allows it, | redistribution is not automatically a feature of all open | source. | | It's certainly true that there are users out there who expect | unreasonable things to happen just because they say so, right? | Have you been on the receiving end of user demands? I certainly | have. Your reaction might be different if you knew that part of | the story. This is why your reaction sounds like it might land | under Hickey's qualification "If you don't recognize yourself | in the message above, it's not for/about you!" He's speaking to | the unreasonable people who have demanded things of him and his | project, not the reasonable ones who already understand what | open source is or is not, right? | | *edit: there is some context here | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31958698 | grzm wrote: | > _" The thing is, that has nothing to do with open source, it | 's always project-specific, so the full post largely doesn't | make any sense as a comment on open source."_ | | I think that's exactly the point he's making. To phrase it | another way, open source is orthogonal to the relationship | between the stewards and the community. | pure_simplicity wrote: | He is clearly responding to people who have a misunderstanding | of what open source is, so you cannot blame him for correcting | the wrong understanding as if he is the one who defined open | source to include these additional expectations that go beyond | the license. He is merely pointing out how the way he runs his | project is also in accordance with the license. | moomin wrote: | The thing is, yes the people who run a project can do what they | like, but everyone else remains entitled to their opinion. In the | best case scenario, people who are profoundly unhappy can walk, | and indeed that's what's happened to Clojure. In the worst case, | the investment in a platform is so large that people can't leave. | Those people are likely to be pretty vocal if your decisions | negatively affect them. | PhilKunz wrote: | I think a little bit differently about that: | | There are some duties that apply to people that are open sourcing | stuff: | | * Don't lie about what it does. * Don't hack people by smuggling | some nasty code into minor version updates. * Don't leave people | vulnerable to third party exposure by not taking care of your | private keys. | | I am an Open Source dev myself, having about 300 modules on npm. | I use it as reputation credit for actually getting jobs that pay | good money. | | If you are an Open Source dev, you are a "Code Influencer". You | have to be straight about what you do. It is the same for normal | influencers when they have to declare any paid promotion stuff. | Lio wrote: | Sorry but there are no extra duties implied by open source | other than what's in the licence. Licences usually explicitly | say that there is no support and no implied duties other than | those guaranteed by law. | | Open source/free software existed long before nebulous[1] terms | like "influencer" came into fashion. | | All it means is that you get the source code and some limited | rights to modify, distribute and run the code. The rest is on | you. If you don't like the licence, don't use | the software. If you don't trust the author or group | behind it, don't use the software. If you don't think the | project is well run or not, don't use the software. If | you don't like the politics of the people involved, don't use | the software. If the website "smells funny", don't use | the software. If you can't tell if the software is | safe or not... you guessed it, don't use the software. | | If you drink from puddles then it's up to you to decide if the | water is clean or not. | | 1. i.e. there is no definition in law to what this means. | kweingar wrote: | These "extra duties" aren't implied by open source, they're | implied by common decency. | | An open source developer does have a duty to not mislead | their users or publish malware. | Lio wrote: | "Common decency", much like "common sense", is just a | projection of one's own values on to others. | | I dislike telemetry and ad tracking and I avoid software | that includes them whenever possible. I think they're | against common decency but I know that others disagree and | think both are perfectly acceptable. | | We'd all like to believe that we share a definition of what | "common decency" is but sadly we don't. It's why we resort | to the law to settle disputes and why we need legal | professionals to interpret that law. | | What you're describing, misleading users or publishing | malware, these are not things controlled by some notion of | common decency or some personal moral code but either by | statutory rights or criminal laws. e.g. in the UK with have | the Computer Misuse Act to stop people adding things like | time locks to software. | | That's completely different to whether the source to an | application is available and whether you can distribute | modified versions of that source. | MereInterest wrote: | You're describing things that are legal requirements and | legal duties. The parent is arguing that there is a moral | requirement and a moral duty to uphold. | capableweb wrote: | Those "moral requirements & duties" usually go into a "Code | of Conduct" or "Contributor Guidelines" instead of in the | license of the project, as they are separate from the | distribution, usage and modification of the code. | | And rightly so. The community seems to constantly mix "open | source" the distribution model with the "open/community" | development model that some projects adhere to. | | We would all be better off by being more precise with what | words we use to describe all of these things, and what our | expectations are. Just like what Hickey did here. | MereInterest wrote: | I am referring to moral duties that exist independent of | the project they are in. An individual project's Code of | Conduct may recognize pre-existing moral requirements, | and may apply additional moral goals that the project | upholds, but it can neither supplant nor disclaim moral | requirements that pre-date it. If an update to a project | adds a keylogger and exfiltrates your login information, | that project has failed in its moral duty, even if not | explicitly stated in the project's CoC. | b3morales wrote: | Well, one of the problems is that there are groups | (though few) who want the social sheen of having an "open | development process" while not actually accepting input. | The fact that the source is published is _deliberately_ | conflated with the idea that the community is open, for | marketing purposes. | [deleted] | Paianni wrote: | So everyone should reject all proprietary software outright | (at least for internet-connected devices) and become fluent | in programming languages to determine good from evil? | [deleted] | capableweb wrote: | > There are some duties that apply to people that are open | sourcing stuff: | | No, zero duties. The express purpose of Open Source is that I | can release code for free to world, and it's your | responsibility to figure out if it's what you need. Adding some | arbitrary "duties" that people must fulfill to release open | source, is something else, and should not be called just "Open | Source" as that already has a definition. | | If you get hit by any of those points you list, then you're the | one responsible for that. | | > If you are an Open Source dev, you are a "Code Influencer". | | That's mixing up terms. Open Source developers are developers | who release Open Source code, that's it. People who try to | "influence" the ecosystem one way or another, could be called | "code influencers" I guess, but please don't mix them together. | One doesn't imply the other. | saagarjha wrote: | Nope, you never have zero duties, as much as you would like | to be a jerk to people. Just like putting salmonella in your | free cookies will get the police to show up at your door real | quick, releasing open source code with malicious behavior, or | lying about what you're doing, or just straight up being a | rude person is not really acceptable, open source maintainer | or not. There are appropriate consequences for all of these, | and not all of them involve the legal system. | dahart wrote: | I agree but you've just explained nicely why this duty has | nothing to do with open source software. The duties you're | talking about are universal. Are there any special duties | open source devs have that other people don't have? | capableweb wrote: | Purposefully poising people without disclosing that, is | illegal. Yes. | | Purposefully infecting computers with viruses without | disclosing that, is probably illegal too. Yes. | | Publishing code that on purpose infects computers with | virus but disclosing that, is probably not illegal. | | Publishing code without any disclosures at all, which | happens to infect people, is probably not illegal either. | | You don't have to download random code from GitHub and run | it. No one is forcing you to. And if you do so, you're | responsible for your own actions. | | Lying about what you're doing or being rude is shitty, and | the ecosystem should not support that, I agree with that. | But throwing in a MIT license together with some code you | publish, doesn't simply that you won't lie or that you | won't be rude. It just says that you can use that code if | you want to. | | What you're looking for if you're looking for promises of | not being lied to, is something closer to a Code of Conduct | or Contributing Guidelines. It's outside the scope of | (most) licenses. | orlp wrote: | >> * Don't lie about what it does. >> * Don't hack | people by smuggling some nasty code into minor version | updates. >> * Don't leave people vulnerable to third | party exposure by not taking care of your private keys. | > > If you get hit by any of those points you list, | then you're the one responsible for that. | | If someone on the street hands you a free sample, say a candy | bar, is it then your responsibility to check that the candy | bar: | | 1. contains no razor blades (malicious behavior), and | | 2. contains no peanuts because of your allergy even though | the packaging says it doesn't (lying about what it is)? | | Obviously not, anyone handing those out violating those | assumptions is an asshole and in most jurisdictions a | criminal. It is _not_ the responsibility of the acceptor to | check these things, our society expects (and enforces through | the law) that people are honest and non-malicious. Even if | the sample is free. | | The exact same applies to source code you distribute. It | would not be reasonable to analyze every free candy bar for | hidden razor blades by meticulously taking it apart, nor do a | spectral analysis for peanut traces in exactly the same way | it is not reasonable for people to verify every line of code. | thesuperbigfrog wrote: | >> It is not the responsibility of the acceptor to check | these things, our society expects (and enforces through the | law) that people are honest and non-malicious. Even if the | sample is free. | | >> The exact same applies to source code you distribute. It | would not be reasonable to analyze every free candy bar for | hidden razor blades by meticulously taking it apart, nor do | a spectral analysis for peanut traces in exactly the same | way it is not reasonable for people to verify every line of | code. | | That is not what the licenses say. | | Most FLOSS licenses have a clause like this: | | THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY | KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE | WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR | PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS | OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR | OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR | OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE | SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. | | If the author explicitly disclaims all responsibilty about | the released software, then all responsibilty falls on the | user. | PhilKunz wrote: | So how is a normal influencer then an actual influencer, and | not just a person "releasing" content "for free to (the) | world"? | capableweb wrote: | I couldn't care less about the definition of what an | "influencer" is or not. | | What we're talking about here is releasing code as FOSS. | Just because I add a MIT license to code I publish | publicly, doesn't mean I want to be some "influencer" or | whatever. It just implies (rather explicitly) exactly what | it says in the license text, nothing more, nothing less. | threatofrain wrote: | I'd say that your rules apply to everyone whether or not they | are part of an open source community. | | Being a closed source dev doesn't make malware morally | acceptable. Lying is a complicated thing as everyone does it, | but no matter the context, you can't be surprised if you face | social consequences for deceiving people. And allowing people | to use your stuff for wrongdoing is also going to affect your | reputation, in the same way that someone using your Facebook | account for bad shit is going to come back to you. | | A more interesting discussion would be on the relationship | between a volunteer organization and its volunteers, as this | post is probably in response to a recognized community | contributor. | matheusmoreira wrote: | Those are all nice things to do when managing a project but | they are definitely not obligations. Some of us open source | developers don't even work as professional software developers. | | I for one reserve the right to simply abandon a project once I | decide it's served its purpose. I often start projects to make | tools for my own personal use, to learn something by trying to | reinvent a better wheel or just to prove to myself that I'm not | insane for imagining different ways to do things. Fear of | inadvertently creating responsibility for myself, such as | responsibility to polish, maintain or even finish projects, has | led me to not actually publish lots of software I've written. | | One such project actually made it to HN once. It's really nice | when other people see your project, I'm happy even with | criticism because it means I can learn something. However, I | really don't want this to turn into an unpaid duty. I try to do | things properly when I'm programming but at the same time I | have increasingly limited free time and attention. | | For example, I wrote a user space driver for my laptop's | keyboard LEDs: | | https://github.com/matheusmoreira/ite-829x | | I just wanted to turn them off because they default to bright | blue lights. Then I thought it'd be interesting to add some | application-specific color schemes. | | While reverse engineering it, I discovered some insane | functionality. The Windows driver would intercept all | keystrokes and send signals to the keyboard to light up the | keys when they're pressed. Why not do it in hardware? I started | documenting those features but it was just so insane I decided | it was better to just stop. I really don't want to feel | pressured to finish that, especially since I'm not going to use | it. | | Then it turned out I actually had users, and one person created | an issue asking for help with the somewhat cryptic user | interface I came up with. I realized in horror the issue was | created months ago and I didn't even see it. I tried to help as | much as I could but still. | CuriousSkeptic wrote: | I recognise myself so much in this post. | | > I realized in horror the issue was created months ago and I | didn't even see it. | | I even had one issue opened for three years before I found my | self with some extra time for the project. Was quite | surprised, but delighted, when the submitter responded with a | thank you, and "worth the wait" just minutes after resolving | it. | | I guess what I'm saying is, don't let the pressure take you | down to much. Most people are probably both patient and | grateful. | bcrosby95 wrote: | No one is entitled to much in life. But people expect many things | which they aren't entitled to. This is normal, and does not mean | there's something functionally wrong with people that expect | certain things. | | I expect my neighbor to not flip me off every morning. Am I | entitled to it? No, not really. Being an asshole is not illegal. | But I would probably still complain about it. Does that make me | entitled? | | What you need to do is manage expectations. Which... this is one | way to do it. | bdefore wrote: | Expectations can be set by the license, most of which used for | open source explicitly outline that the author is under no | obligations. | | There's quite a distance between your example and the behavior | of most open source developers. Are you implying that those who | don't respond to suggestions are flipping you off? | pessimizer wrote: | It's clearly arguing that we expect many things that we have | no right to. Open source developers aren't bound by any | expectations that we have of them, but we also have no duty | or obligation not to have expectations. | | My 2C/ is that some open source maintainers have severe | boundary issues that are pretty natural for people to have. | They need to be liked by everyone, which is probably why they | decided to do OSS, because if you give people things for | free, they like you. | | People's expectations rise to the challenge and demand the | maximum amount of free stuff, and the maintainer is pushed to | their limits to satisfy them for little or no renumeration. | But if they stop, people won't like them, and that sets off | some useful animal heuristic where that possibility causes | them to feel in actual danger (which they may project onto | the project i.e. "the project is being endangered by entitled | users asking for things.") The loss of what you think people | love you for (giving away free shit) is a loss of identity | and one's place in the world. | | The reaction of the demanding users is just as natural. | Remember: if you feed a stray dog, people don't naturally | feel the dog is now obligated to you, _they feel that you are | now obligated to the dog._ | | You have to be modern, establish boundaries, and not place | enough of yourself in the expectations of other people that | they can destroy you with disappointment. | | It might be better to move to proprietary or Free software. | With Free software, you're establishing something and | granting it to the public (not becoming something), and you | can walk into and out of it with no feeling of guilt or of | being taken advantage of. No one else will get rich off your | work, and if your work helps people it will live forever. | With proprietary software, you're dealing with safe, | formalized purchase and support relationships. It's this OSS | shit that seems to drive everyone crazy. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | I'd certainly be interested in hearing the story behind that. | | Personally, I have no use for Clojure, myself, and, thus, no | opinions on the project, or its participants; other than to | sincerely wish them well, and success in their endeavors. | | Because Clojure (as a specific project) is not something that I | use, my opinion of the tool _has no bearing_ on whether or not it | is a good tool, or on its creators /community. I completely | recognize and accept that my opinion of the tool and its creators | is _absolutely worthless_. | | So, I'm best off, keeping my mouth shut on the tool and its | creators. I can live with that. | | Since this was linked on the front page of HN, and seems to have | remained up for four years, I can comment on what it says, in a | very limited fashion, as there are a couple of things that | resonate with me. | | In my case, I'm the original author of a fairly important | infrastructure tool, that has been completely taken over, and is | being maintained, by a new team of highly capable individuals. | I'm barely even a footnote on the project, and that suits me just | fine. I pop into the Facebook group for the project, from time to | time, and spew up a little historical anecdote, as a trivia | exercise. | | But I started writing that project in 2008, and released it in | 2009. I then had to shepherd, maintain, evangelize, and defend | the project for ten years, in a sizable community of, for lack of | a better word, trolls. The project was meant to help them, and | Serve their needs. Getting them to accept and embrace the tool | was ... _challenging_. I was met with suspicion, hostility, | entitled demands, condescension, hostile takeover attempts, | insults, attacks of various types, etc. | | Ahhh ... fun times. | | But in the end, it worked out. | | One of the reasons that I have all but walked away from the tool, | is that ten years of keeping the pot boiling was exhausting. A | lot of other stuff didn't get done, while I was working on that, | and I had to hold myself back, in many ways. I also made a number | of interpersonal mistakes, while evangelizing/defending the | project, and learned some harsh, humbling, lessons about myself, | and about others. | | I am eternally grateful to the team that took the project over. I | am sure that it is not their idea of a "perfect tool," but it | gave them an excellent baseline, and they have extended it, far | beyond my initial vision. It now Serves thousands and thousands | of people daily. I was also able to soak up a lot of the bullets | for them. I'm a pretty tough old coot, and knew what I was | signing up for (I am intimately familiar with the target | demographic). Now that it's an established project, and some of | the new team are quite respected in the community, it is being | treated well. | | All that, to say, that I was tempted to write a manifesto like | this, numerous times, but decided that it would only make things | worse. | | I think, in my case, that was a good decision. | kryptiskt wrote: | If you want to build a real community around it there needs to be | give and take, you can't just throw the stuff over the wall for | the hoi polloi. That might not be suitable for a small project | you are content with doing yourself or you might want to set | yourself up as the unquestioned god-emperor, who allows others to | work for your greater glory but who will not allow any competing | vision. I don't like the latter kind of project at all. | | Open source is about you, or could be about you, if you find the | right kind of open source community. | wildmanx wrote: | What open source _means_ and what different people choose to | _use_ it for are different things. Of course as a maintainer | you may get more out of it if you put effort in for building a | community, which then can help you improve the project, | contribute, etc. But that 's extra effort, and nobody should | assume that everybody commits to that extra effort just because | they release source code under a FOSS license. | streaming wrote: | As someone who started and ran a very successful open source | project, I feel his pain. You get a large following of adopters, | some of whom feel entitled to demand features or priority for bug | fixes even though they aren't contributing anything to the | project. If they don't get what they want, they start bad- | mouthing you in order to bring more pressure. After about 6 | months of observing this, I finally had a good discussion with my | brilliant Principal Architect, who helped me respond as | follows... If you would like a new feature or bug fix, you have | the following options; 1 - Improve the code yourself. 2 - Pay | someone to improve the code. 3 - Ask nicely, and wait patiently. | Or, 4 - Openly criticize the project leads. | | If it were me, I wouldn't choose option 4. But that's just me. | | Once I posted this to the main forum thread where people | discussed the project, most of the participants rallied to | support me, and peer pressured in the discussion threads helped | keep open source entitlement to a minimum. | tikhonj wrote: | Meh, I think this attitude misses the some of the fundamental | social dynamics in the open source world: projects--at least the | ones you've heard of--aren't just code, they're communities. | People using, or even just _talking about_ , a project are a part | of the community. A small part, perhaps, but a part nonetheless. | If a project wants to be "successful" in the sense of being | popular or active, it needs to maintain a community which almost | always includes the fringes outside the core contributors. People | who are part of a community, however tangentially, will want | _something_ from it, or they 're just going to leave--that isn't | entitlement, that's just how people's attention works! | | There's a reason that--"just fork it" rhetoric aside--forking an | active project is often seen as an actively hostile social move: | it's not about the code or the license, which allow forking by | design, but rather about potentially _splitting the community_. | And this also makes sense; if you 've built something and want | people to use it, having somebody else take their own version and | convince people to switch isn't going to feel great! But there's | an inherent contradiction between "trying to split the community | by forking is hostile" and "the community is entitled to | nothing": if you're getting some value from having a community, | people in the community wanting input on the direction is _not_ | pure entitlement! Now, to be clear, this does not mean that every | complaint or request on a maintainer 's time is reasonable, and | I've certainly seen many interactions that cross the line--but, | ultimately, if you're a maintainer and care about having a | community around your project, you become a steward of the | community by definition. And for stewarding a community? The "you | are not entitled to anything" attitude is fundamentally toxic | _and counterproductive_. | | Critically, none of this applies if you're just making an open | source project for yourself. Do whatever you want! But then don't | be surprised if somebody forks your efforts and gathers people | around a "competing" effort. But you can't have your cake and eat | it too; if you want a project that goes _beyond_ just yourself, | the community around the project starts to be something that | matters. | Phiwise_ wrote: | >You are not entitled to this explanation. | | The rest of the post would be good if not for this crack that | lets the rot in. | Destiner wrote: | Dunno, made me chuckle a bit. | chris_wot wrote: | Noone is entitled to it, but we all got it nonetheless. It's a | gift. | krapp wrote: | It's true, though. | motbus3 wrote: | open source has been used as a way of fighting patent trolls and | also claiming ownership of similar systems. | longrod wrote: | A huge part of open source is open community, open to feedback, | open to suggestions, feature requests and contributions. | Obviously there's no entitlement but it's one of the few actual | benefits of open sourcing. | | Edit: I know about "open source but not open contribution" thing | which is quite rare (esbuild for one). I don't think that's a | good idea for the health of the project. | | I know not everyone has the mental strength to run and moderate a | community but in the software world, a community is akin to being | a celebrity. People follow you, wait on you, listen to you, value | you, troll you, throw insults at you, shout at you, and show | attitude to you when you don't owe them anything. The best part | is that someone somewhere knows you. Fame is a huge motivator. | | If all of the open source projects had huge communities and no | funding, there'd be more actively maintained projects than there | are now with very few communities. I might even say that a few | dollars here and there might not even make a huge difference | compared to a few people making issues, taking interest and | contributing. | | Now I know not everyone is like that or should be like that. I am | not generalizing here but come on. When you put your effort out | there, it is quite reasonable to expect some form of compensation | or appreciation. | | If all the open source projects just put the code out there and | called it a day, that'd be a huge disservice to the world. Open | source is the birthing ground for a lot of software engineers and | all their learning is due to them being a part of a community and | contributing. | | And as to be expected the bad comes with the good. That's | alright. If you take the decision to run a community, don't worry | about a few bad apples here and there. It's a part of the deal. | | The benefits of being open community far outweigh the cons. It's | no obligation but it sure is a good thing. | bdefore wrote: | while i agree that open contribution software is a genuine good | for this world for the reasons you enumerate, it is a _subset_ | of open source software. OSS by itself does not imply that the | author wishes to manage a community around the code they are | freely giving. this common conflation causes authors to abandon | or suppress ever releasing their source openly. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-02 23:00 UTC)