3 ms·

As soon as a bug affects them, they want it fixed immediately. If you don't fix it in 24 hours (because maybe you have a real life or a family or you're s

by nkurz 11y ago

As soon as a bug affects them, they want it fixed immediately. If you don't fix it in 24 hours (because maybe you have a real life or a family or you're sick or any number of other very valid reasons) then the threats start: "Well if you're not going to take this seriously, we'll have to start using another project." What's the downside to an individual at a corporation for trying to guilt the maintainer into doing their bidding? If the bug gets fixed, they look good within their company. If it doesn't, what do they lose? I'd guess that companies take this approach because on net, the benefits outweigh the downsides. If guilt can get 1/3 of your bugs fixed promptly and for free, and if the other 2/3 of the time there are no repercussions, then guilt is probably a good strategy. To change this, one either needs to reduce the success rate, or penalize the request. Judging by the prevalence of spam, you'd have to get the success rate very, very low before it would curtail "bad" behavior. So what's the appropriate penalty? Has anyone tried a "black list" license? Take some standard open source license, and add "This software may not be used by anyone employed by the following corporations: [list]. If you are employed by an company on this list, and use software without specific license, you will personally be held liable for liquidated damages of $XXXXXX. If you would like have a company removed from this list, please contact [x] to discuss how we can better align our interests." I'm not suggesting that this is the right solution for most (if any) projects, but consider the "glee" of being able to respond "Great! In fact, I think you might want to switch to a different project immediately. I've added you to the blacklist, and while you are allowed to continue using the current version under terms of the license distributed with it, all future releases and bug fixes are now off limits."

tedunangst 11y ago
Just tell them to fuck off. Same glee, less overhead.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  I think Ted is onto something here. The author might want to try this approach. If he's concerned, he can do A/B testing between Give In and Fuck Off to measure their effectiveness. Haha
ngoldbaum 11y ago
Such a license would not be a free software license, which basically means that no one can use the software for anything beyond a hobby project.
xemdetia 11y ago
I think part of the problem is that there are certain organizations that just operate like this. If they don't have an immediate result the immediate answer is to threaten to burn their bridges. I am sure many can say the same for the stuff that happens even when it's a fully closed-source commercial relationship.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
x5n1 11y ago
My response: that will be $10,000-$20,000 please. And no I don't care if you go use another project. Or you can also sign up for our enterprise support package for only $2,500/mo with a 1 year contract minimum we can figure out a way to get that bug fixed asap. Ultimately it's all a question of money, if you are not getting enough to provide the kind of service they demand. DEMAND MORE! And don't give a shit about the manager trying to manage you. They don't pay you, you owe them nothing. Don't be afraid to say no. Free software is free because they should pay you to either provide support or fix problems when they pay for them to be fixed. You be a good little capitalist and let them get up the creek without a paddle and then charge them an arm and a leg to get back down. If they don't like it, they can figure out some other way to solve their problems.
- p4wnc6 11y ago
  Or tell them to fork the project and fix it themselves. Perhaps we should popularize something like "go fork yourself" as a valid response?
  - x5n1 11y ago
    brilliant.
- j_s 11y ago
  > Don't be afraid to say no. This has been key for me!
flomo 11y ago
I wouldn't overthink this, it's mainly the psychology of the people who work in the bowels of big companies. They are used to having vendors kissing their ring, and on some level they justify it by thinking it's because BigCo is such an awesome big company. So they take that posture with "vendors" who are random open source devs on the internet. But these people are usually the most cynical bastards you can imagine, and they really know it's all about the money. So, I'll echo the other suggestions, and recommend you send them a professionally-worded proposal. If they know can spend $X to get Y, (and Y kissing their booty) they'll drop the pretense and 'do business'.

by nkurz 11y ago

tedunangst 11y ago

Just tell them to fuck off. Same glee, less overhead.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
I think Ted is onto something here. The author might want to try this approach. If he's concerned, he can do A/B testing between Give In and Fuck Off to measure their effectiveness. Haha

ngoldbaum 11y ago

Such a license would not be a free software license, which basically means that no one can use the software for anything beyond a hobby project.

xemdetia 11y ago

I think part of the problem is that there are certain organizations that just operate like this. If they don't have an immediate result the immediate answer is to threaten to burn their bridges. I am sure many can say the same for the stuff that happens even when it's a fully closed-source commercial relationship.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

x5n1 11y ago

My response: that will be $10,000-$20,000 please. And no I don't care if you go use another project. Or you can also sign up for our enterprise support package for only $2,500/mo with a 1 year contract minimum we can figure out a way to get that bug fixed asap. Ultimately it's all a question of money, if you are not getting enough to provide the kind of service they demand. DEMAND MORE! And don't give a shit about the manager trying to manage you. They don't pay you, you owe them nothing. Don't be afraid to say no. Free software is free because they should pay you to either provide support or fix problems when they pay for them to be fixed. You be a good little capitalist and let them get up the creek without a paddle and then charge them an arm and a leg to get back down. If they don't like it, they can figure out some other way to solve their problems.

p4wnc6 11y ago
Or tell them to fork the project and fix it themselves. Perhaps we should popularize something like "go fork yourself" as a valid response?
- x5n1 11y ago
  brilliant.
j_s 11y ago
> Don't be afraid to say no. This has been key for me!

flomo 11y ago

I wouldn't overthink this, it's mainly the psychology of the people who work in the bowels of big companies. They are used to having vendors kissing their ring, and on some level they justify it by thinking it's because BigCo is such an awesome big company. So they take that posture with "vendors" who are random open source devs on the internet. But these people are usually the most cynical bastards you can imagine, and they really know it's all about the money. So, I'll echo the other suggestions, and recommend you send them a professionally-worded proposal. If they know can spend $X to get Y, (and Y kissing their booty) they'll drop the pretense and 'do business'.