3 ms·

> Therefore, if you or your organization are open to the idea of monetary exchange for ownership of a repo / pypi project, please email me Am I somehow misinte

> Therefore, if you or your organization are open to the idea of monetary exchange for ownership of a repo / pypi project, please email me Am I somehow misinterpreting that, or was that really a blatant attempt to sell the repos and pypi ownership of some extremely popular Python libraries?

ijpoijpoihpiuoh 7y ago
So it seems. Would that be a problem for some reason?
- Deimorz 7y ago
  "Buy this and you will be able to put any code you want into any project that uses Requests and doesn't carefully audit the changes in new versions" is potentially a pretty huge problem, yes. Similar issues have already happened with people buying or otherwise taking over popular NPM packages.
  - LyndsySimon 7y ago
    This immediately follows: > I am considering this an unlikely and rare situation. Only serious offers will be considered, and money won't influence maintainer-ship decisions.
  - JadeNB 7y ago
    > "Buy this and you will be able to put any code you want into any project that uses Requests and doesn't carefully audit the changes in new versions" is potentially a pretty huge problem, yes. Would not taking money somehow obviate the issue?
  - Spivak 7y ago
    I mean this isn't that weird. I'm sure a lot of companies would like to buy 'control' of the project and move it in the direction that the original maintainers didn't necessarily want to. Plus being the company/org that maintains requests is pretty good PR. There is absolutely an exchange of value here, no reason to assume that a change in maintainership means cash for malware.
  - ijpoijpoihpiuoh 7y ago
    IMO people should have a right to sell things they've made. I get that that is inconvenient to open source folks. And most of the time it will be fine. But, IMO, if this is a concern, someone should make it worth it to this owner not to sell it to a bad organization. It is just not good enough to say, "You can't sell this thing because it is inconvenient to me, someone with whom you have no contract and to whom you owe no duties."
    - bhaak 7y ago
      What about the other maintainers of the code? If you are the sole person that contributed code, that's fine, but what about codebases that had lots of code contributed by other people?
      - LyndsySimon 7y ago
        What’s being transferred here isn’t ownership of all the code, but control of the project and the IP associated with it.
AmrMostafa 7y ago
> Only serious offers will be considered, and money won't influence maintainer-ship decisions

ijpoijpoihpiuoh 7y ago

So it seems. Would that be a problem for some reason?

Deimorz 7y ago
"Buy this and you will be able to put any code you want into any project that uses Requests and doesn't carefully audit the changes in new versions" is potentially a pretty huge problem, yes. Similar issues have already happened with people buying or otherwise taking over popular NPM packages.
- LyndsySimon 7y ago
  This immediately follows: > I am considering this an unlikely and rare situation. Only serious offers will be considered, and money won't influence maintainer-ship decisions.
- JadeNB 7y ago
  > "Buy this and you will be able to put any code you want into any project that uses Requests and doesn't carefully audit the changes in new versions" is potentially a pretty huge problem, yes. Would not taking money somehow obviate the issue?
- Spivak 7y ago
  I mean this isn't that weird. I'm sure a lot of companies would like to buy 'control' of the project and move it in the direction that the original maintainers didn't necessarily want to. Plus being the company/org that maintains requests is pretty good PR. There is absolutely an exchange of value here, no reason to assume that a change in maintainership means cash for malware.
- ijpoijpoihpiuoh 7y ago
  IMO people should have a right to sell things they've made. I get that that is inconvenient to open source folks. And most of the time it will be fine. But, IMO, if this is a concern, someone should make it worth it to this owner not to sell it to a bad organization. It is just not good enough to say, "You can't sell this thing because it is inconvenient to me, someone with whom you have no contract and to whom you owe no duties."
  - bhaak 7y ago
    What about the other maintainers of the code? If you are the sole person that contributed code, that's fine, but what about codebases that had lots of code contributed by other people?
    - LyndsySimon 7y ago
      What’s being transferred here isn’t ownership of all the code, but control of the project and the IP associated with it.

AmrMostafa 7y ago

> Only serious offers will be considered, and money won't influence maintainer-ship decisions