3 ms·
Have to disagree. Releasing code doesn't imply any obligation to that code. If it did, the volume of open source code out there would be a fraction of what it i
by boucher 17y ago
Have to disagree. Releasing code doesn't imply any obligation to that code. If it did, the volume of open source code out there would be a fraction of what it is right now.
People are constantly changing directions, and constantly trying out new things which may or may not be useful to them in the future. We're all better off if that code gets released. In turn, we can't expect people to support code they may no longer use, or may not have ever really cared about in the first place.
It should be clear that running an open source project is something completely different. If you make an attempt to start a community, you probably should keep up with that community, or at least responsibly exit it. But people usually build communities around things that are really important to them, or that they have an ulterior motive for advocating (not necessarily a bad motive, just one beyond pure open source).
From where I'm sitting, if Gruber isn't adding anything to the community, he should have been made irrelevant by that community.
- sjs 17y agoMost open-source projects fall into the category "I wrote this and thought it was cool/useful, if you do too you're welcome to use it".
- algorias 17y agoYou're right that there needs to be a distinction between community projects and loose pieces of code. They're completely different in nature, and that's why it's so important to make clear which is which.