2 ms·

Well at that point it's a 2-way street. I'm going to ask for a solution or direction as I'm paying for it. However with OSS I'm not. And while i'm more than fi

Well at that point it's a 2-way street. I'm going to ask for a solution or direction as I'm paying for it. However with OSS I'm not. And while i'm more than fine with a "wontfix" or something similar (at the end of the day if the software won't solve my problems, that's okay, I'm not forced to use it, you aren't being forced to maintain it), I'd like to know how I can at least ask without contributing to the problem. And even if I wanted to "pay" with contributions, they aren't free for the maintainer either. I know all too well how a well intentioned fix or change can end up causing more work and annoyance than an issue asking would have.

caseysoftware 10y ago
Why not change the relationship? Find a contributor - on the team or not - working in that area and ask about their rates and what it would take to hire them. Some will not be interested but some will be. At that point, it's a patch but created by someone active in the project. The worst case is that you can apply it yourself. Not great but immediate problem solved. Long term, when you go back to the core team, you have a patch that has been tested and used, built by someone in their community, and you're not making a demand but helping address a gap (real or use case specific). (I've worked on and managed OSS projects for 10+ years and this works pretty consistently. It requires a little more work up front but you end up with a better relationship with the maintainers and a growing network of people who you can contact for specific issues.)
vram22 10y ago
>Well at that point it's a 2-way street. I'm going to ask for a solution or direction as I'm paying for it. >However with OSS I'm not. Open source software is not the opposite of free (as in money) software. Saying this not just for you (maybe you knew it and used the term loosely) but for others too since I often see this wrong use of terms, sometimes even among people who one might think should have known of it. There can be (and is) for-pay open source, free open source, for-pay proprietary and free proprietary software - all four possibilities. The two dimensions are orthogonal, sort of. The fact that one or two out of the four kinds may predominate, does not change the above points. May seem pedantic, I know, but isn't, really, IMO, and I think is worth clearing up this misconception. Edit: typos.
- jcrites 10y ago
  Yes, that's a good point. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is open source software, for example, but many companies still pay for RedHat's support services, because the task of doing for yourself what they do for you can be complicated, especially where it comes to understanding, ingesting, and building security patches and things like that.

caseysoftware 10y ago

Why not change the relationship? Find a contributor - on the team or not - working in that area and ask about their rates and what it would take to hire them. Some will not be interested but some will be. At that point, it's a patch but created by someone active in the project. The worst case is that you can apply it yourself. Not great but immediate problem solved. Long term, when you go back to the core team, you have a patch that has been tested and used, built by someone in their community, and you're not making a demand but helping address a gap (real or use case specific). (I've worked on and managed OSS projects for 10+ years and this works pretty consistently. It requires a little more work up front but you end up with a better relationship with the maintainers and a growing network of people who you can contact for specific issues.)

vram22 10y ago

>Well at that point it's a 2-way street. I'm going to ask for a solution or direction as I'm paying for it. >However with OSS I'm not. Open source software is not the opposite of free (as in money) software. Saying this not just for you (maybe you knew it and used the term loosely) but for others too since I often see this wrong use of terms, sometimes even among people who one might think should have known of it. There can be (and is) for-pay open source, free open source, for-pay proprietary and free proprietary software - all four possibilities. The two dimensions are orthogonal, sort of. The fact that one or two out of the four kinds may predominate, does not change the above points. May seem pedantic, I know, but isn't, really, IMO, and I think is worth clearing up this misconception. Edit: typos.

jcrites 10y ago
Yes, that's a good point. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is open source software, for example, but many companies still pay for RedHat's support services, because the task of doing for yourself what they do for you can be complicated, especially where it comes to understanding, ingesting, and building security patches and things like that.