5 ms·

Oh, boo-hoo. I maintain a bunch of FOSS projects too and I endure entitlement too, and I yet was still there calling you out for this. What Caddy has done is de

Oh, boo-hoo. I maintain a bunch of FOSS projects too and I endure entitlement too, and I yet was still there calling you out for this. What Caddy has done is deliberately mislead and disrespect both new and established users. Other groups have added commercial licensing options to their software without facing (as much) vitrol because they didn't mislead or disrespect people while doing so. Don't think Caddy is in the same league as them. You got hate because you did it wrong, not because you did it at all. Your post is mining for sympathy because you got hate for being a jerk and it demonstrates that you've learned little from the event. You may not owe your users anything, but guess what: they don't owe you anything either. That's how open source works.

watwut 9y ago
The world and oss especially would be much better place if people were able to criticise without being so emotional about it (the hate and personal attacks part). It is like, every other issue leads to blow up of emotions.
rocqua 9y ago
You may not owe your users anything, but guess what: they don't owe you anything either. That's how open source works. Yep, that is how open source works. Note the 'source' there? Anyone is free to charge for compiled binaries. If this compilation has added bonuses (e.g. including plugins) that gives people a reason to pay for that compilation. In any case, those that don't like it can just compile the project themselves. What exactly do you think was misleading about this move?
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  You're right but you lack context about what's wrong with the Caddy change. I wrote up my concerns in detail in the original thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15238969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15238969
  - rocqua 9y ago
    How does the trademark stuff interact with distributions potentially providing binaries via their package managers?
    - Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
      It doesn't.
      - jlgaddis 9y ago
        Have we forgotten about Mozilla/Debian [0,1] already? A hypothetical -- but certainly possible -- scenario: $distro (e.g. Debian, RHEL, Ubuntu) takes the Caddy source, removes the controversial header, builds a binary package, and distributes it as "caddy" via their standard repositories. Light Code Labs doesn't approve of this and asks/demands that $distro stop using the trademark. $distro now has to make a choice: remove the "unapproved" changes from their package, stop distributing their package, or rebrand the software under a different name. (That potentially could have happened here [2,3] but it was quickly resolved well before it got to that point.) I don't think "it doesn't" is correct -- at least not for 100% of cases. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranded_by_Debian https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranded_b... [1]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15238315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15238315 [3]: https://github.com/WedgeServer/wedge/issues/2 https://github.com/WedgeServer/wedge/issues/2
- DandyDev 9y ago
  > Anyone is free to charge for compiled binaries. If this compilation has added bonuses (e.g. including plugins) that gives people a reason to pay for that compilation. In any case, those that don't like it can just compile the project themselves. Yep, anyone is free to charge whatever amount for whatever service/feature they offer. But apparently, in this case, the backlash against Caddy's move is greater than the willingness to pay for the service rendered (building binaries without the sponsor header). Matt's post, and a lot of comments here on HN defending Matt, are missing the point: yes, there was vitriol, and yes, people reacted in a way that was disproportional to the announced changes, but in the end the most important take-away is that people are _not_ willing to pay for the product and are angry because of the changes and the way they were handled. This will cost Caddy a lot of business. Period. In my opinion Matt should have done one of two things: - Own up to his mistake (if he agrees it's a mistake) - Stand by his choices, grow a pair, and laugh at the community for their silliness What he did instead, is play the victim. He's not a victim. He tries to run a business. That alone will always alienate people. Deal with it!
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    Those people that weren't paying aren't a business. Matt cannot pay his bills with them.
  - watwut 9y ago
    It seems like he grew a pair and told community what he thinks. He is actually dealing with the fact that some people don't like businesses - he is responding to them in calm rational manner. Right here, in the linked article. What he is not however, he is not doormat that would pretend to laugh when being lied about, when his oss credentials are attacked, etc. Neither he is refraiming what he considers "vitriol" as "silly community". The two expressions have two different meanings. You may disagree about characterisation, of course, but it seems that you don't. You just want him not to talk about it. Demanding that he pretends issues are what he does not considers them to be is to demand he becomes a coward and poisons the community with feel good lies.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    Can we try to move away from phrases like "Grow a pair"? It's such a classically unhelpful line. I feel like this isn't even being too nitpicky -- women can't grow a pair, and saying that men lack a pair is nothing more than an insult. The underlying message is "shut up and deal with it," which is also unhelpful. People can feel how they feel, and there is no shame in expressing those feelings in a productive way.
roblabla 9y ago
I just read the release announcement and, while poorly worded, I don't see how it misleads or disrespect users. OSS is just that : a promise that users may modify the software to their heart's content. They didn't break that promise at all. Care to share why you hold your view ?
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  See my criticism in the previous thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15238969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15238969
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bartread 9y ago
I rather think this was probably incompetence rather than malice or, as someone I know likes to say: cock up, not conspiracy. That being the case do we really think it's justified to roast them over it? Do we really think it's OK to make unpleasant accusations about them? To character-assassinate them? To drag their names through the mud and hurl insults at them? I don't think so. My suspicion is that all you know about these people is what you've read about them on the internet (granted: some of it will have been written by them), but the internet is a notoriously fickle and inaccurate source. I seriously doubt they've "deliberately misled" anyone.
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  My suspicion is that all you've read of what I've written is this solitary comment, and have no idea what my complaints are.
  - grzm 9y ago
    You're probably right. People don't always track down what people have posted elsewhere, even if it's further down the thread. This would seem to be an opportunity to share your complaints, or perhaps just let it drop.
    - Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
      You'll be the third person under this parent comment to get a link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15238969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15238969 I can't really be held accountable for people jumping the gun and commenting before they're informed.
      - bartread 9y ago
        And I still maintain: cock up, not conspiracy. Maybe they haven't handled the transition brilliantly. So what? Either use Caddy, or don't. To your point that there's no indication that the project is open source: there are at least two links to the GitHub project on the homepage. And as for the trademark removal from forks, that's sort of fair enough.

watwut 9y ago

The world and oss especially would be much better place if people were able to criticise without being so emotional about it (the hate and personal attacks part). It is like, every other issue leads to blow up of emotions.

rocqua 9y ago

You may not owe your users anything, but guess what: they don't owe you anything either. That's how open source works. Yep, that is how open source works. Note the 'source' there? Anyone is free to charge for compiled binaries. If this compilation has added bonuses (e.g. including plugins) that gives people a reason to pay for that compilation. In any case, those that don't like it can just compile the project themselves. What exactly do you think was misleading about this move?

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
You're right but you lack context about what's wrong with the Caddy change. I wrote up my concerns in detail in the original thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15238969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15238969
- rocqua 9y ago
  How does the trademark stuff interact with distributions potentially providing binaries via their package managers?
  - Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
    It doesn't.
    - jlgaddis 9y ago
      Have we forgotten about Mozilla/Debian [0,1] already? A hypothetical -- but certainly possible -- scenario: $distro (e.g. Debian, RHEL, Ubuntu) takes the Caddy source, removes the controversial header, builds a binary package, and distributes it as "caddy" via their standard repositories. Light Code Labs doesn't approve of this and asks/demands that $distro stop using the trademark. $distro now has to make a choice: remove the "unapproved" changes from their package, stop distributing their package, or rebrand the software under a different name. (That potentially could have happened here [2,3] but it was quickly resolved well before it got to that point.) I don't think "it doesn't" is correct -- at least not for 100% of cases. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranded_by_Debian https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranded_b... [1]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15238315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15238315 [3]: https://github.com/WedgeServer/wedge/issues/2 https://github.com/WedgeServer/wedge/issues/2
DandyDev 9y ago
> Anyone is free to charge for compiled binaries. If this compilation has added bonuses (e.g. including plugins) that gives people a reason to pay for that compilation. In any case, those that don't like it can just compile the project themselves. Yep, anyone is free to charge whatever amount for whatever service/feature they offer. But apparently, in this case, the backlash against Caddy's move is greater than the willingness to pay for the service rendered (building binaries without the sponsor header). Matt's post, and a lot of comments here on HN defending Matt, are missing the point: yes, there was vitriol, and yes, people reacted in a way that was disproportional to the announced changes, but in the end the most important take-away is that people are _not_ willing to pay for the product and are angry because of the changes and the way they were handled. This will cost Caddy a lot of business. Period. In my opinion Matt should have done one of two things: - Own up to his mistake (if he agrees it's a mistake) - Stand by his choices, grow a pair, and laugh at the community for their silliness What he did instead, is play the victim. He's not a victim. He tries to run a business. That alone will always alienate people. Deal with it!
- pjmlp 9y ago
  Those people that weren't paying aren't a business. Matt cannot pay his bills with them.
- watwut 9y ago
  It seems like he grew a pair and told community what he thinks. He is actually dealing with the fact that some people don't like businesses - he is responding to them in calm rational manner. Right here, in the linked article. What he is not however, he is not doormat that would pretend to laugh when being lied about, when his oss credentials are attacked, etc. Neither he is refraiming what he considers "vitriol" as "silly community". The two expressions have two different meanings. You may disagree about characterisation, of course, but it seems that you don't. You just want him not to talk about it. Demanding that he pretends issues are what he does not considers them to be is to demand he becomes a coward and poisons the community with feel good lies.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Can we try to move away from phrases like "Grow a pair"? It's such a classically unhelpful line. I feel like this isn't even being too nitpicky -- women can't grow a pair, and saying that men lack a pair is nothing more than an insult. The underlying message is "shut up and deal with it," which is also unhelpful. People can feel how they feel, and there is no shame in expressing those feelings in a productive way.

roblabla 9y ago

I just read the release announcement and, while poorly worded, I don't see how it misleads or disrespect users. OSS is just that : a promise that users may modify the software to their heart's content. They didn't break that promise at all. Care to share why you hold your view ?

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
See my criticism in the previous thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15238969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15238969

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

bartread 9y ago

I rather think this was probably incompetence rather than malice or, as someone I know likes to say: cock up, not conspiracy. That being the case do we really think it's justified to roast them over it? Do we really think it's OK to make unpleasant accusations about them? To character-assassinate them? To drag their names through the mud and hurl insults at them? I don't think so. My suspicion is that all you know about these people is what you've read about them on the internet (granted: some of it will have been written by them), but the internet is a notoriously fickle and inaccurate source. I seriously doubt they've "deliberately misled" anyone.

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
My suspicion is that all you've read of what I've written is this solitary comment, and have no idea what my complaints are.
- grzm 9y ago
  You're probably right. People don't always track down what people have posted elsewhere, even if it's further down the thread. This would seem to be an opportunity to share your complaints, or perhaps just let it drop.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
    You'll be the third person under this parent comment to get a link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15238969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15238969 I can't really be held accountable for people jumping the gun and commenting before they're informed.
    - bartread 9y ago
      And I still maintain: cock up, not conspiracy. Maybe they haven't handled the transition brilliantly. So what? Either use Caddy, or don't. To your point that there's no indication that the project is open source: there are at least two links to the GitHub project on the homepage. And as for the trademark removal from forks, that's sort of fair enough.