4 ms·

The author owes nobody anything. He's already done enough. If you've given away something for free, don't expect support or anything free in the future. It's li

The author owes nobody anything. He's already done enough. If you've given away something for free, don't expect support or anything free in the future. It's literally like taking a gift from someone and then complaining that it doesn't have enough for you to act indignant to people who give things away for free. Don't like it? Don't use it or improve it and contribute back. Want more? Pay them to build it and add it to what's available for everyone as a way to say thanks.

tempguy9999 7y ago
Agreed. I remember reading about an indie games developer who looked at his proposed user base and decided not to make his game freeware. He wrote there was an attitude of entitlement among people who get the free stuff. People who were prepared to pay, even a very small amount, behaved better. I saw that happen on the centos forums once or twice. It could attract spectacularly selfish individuals. As for people not RTFM'ing, I recall a small internal project I did for which I wrote up comprehensive intro, docs etc. I handed it over to the user who told me to explain it to them. I said "I wrote it all up, help and everything, there it is!". She smiled and said "but who reads those?". I came very close to blowing up at her just then.
jnbiche 7y ago
As someone who maintains open source software, I sympathize with the author and agree that he doesn't owe users personalized help. However, he does have to comply with the legal requirements of the license he uses. Personally, I don't use GPL/LGPL licenses, but if I did, I'd be careful to comply with the provisions of the license.
- shakna 7y ago
  > However, he does have to comply with the legal requirements of the license he uses. No, the author doesn't. Not really. The license governs the use of people who don't hold the copyright. That's why the author of a project can just turn around and release under a new license.
  - jnbiche 7y ago
    No, that's incorrect. The license governs the conduct of both parties (here, the creator and the users). Yes, he can release new software under a new license, but any past software he released under a certain license, he has to follow those terms. If you come to an agreement with another party (like you agree to license a movie, or book to them), you can't just unilaterally cancel that agreement. That's not how contract law works.
    - dtech 7y ago
      He can release the software under a completely different license. Even if that is the exact same software. He can remove all downloads of the software from the websites etc. He owns the copyright. He cannot prevent people who obtained a version of the software under a license from doing what they want with it under the terms of that license.
      - jnbiche 7y ago
        > He cannot prevent people who obtained a version of the software under a license from doing what they want with it under the terms of that license. And that includes getting the source code for a binary released under the GPL. That's exactly what was at issue.
        shakna 7y ago
        Those terms don't apply to the original copyright holder. The requirement to release source code is placed on those making use of the license, not on the original holder. > For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. The original licensor receives no freedoms, as the work is theirs to begin with. It doesn't apply to them. "You" refers solely to those accepting the license. If the original licensor hasn't release the source code with the binary at the time, they are under no obligation to do so. Using the particular license doesn't make sense, but they still aren't obligated. There is no legal issue here, only a moral one. And as the community didn't give the developer room to breathe, that has evaporated.

tempguy9999 7y ago

Agreed. I remember reading about an indie games developer who looked at his proposed user base and decided not to make his game freeware. He wrote there was an attitude of entitlement among people who get the free stuff. People who were prepared to pay, even a very small amount, behaved better. I saw that happen on the centos forums once or twice. It could attract spectacularly selfish individuals. As for people not RTFM'ing, I recall a small internal project I did for which I wrote up comprehensive intro, docs etc. I handed it over to the user who told me to explain it to them. I said "I wrote it all up, help and everything, there it is!". She smiled and said "but who reads those?". I came very close to blowing up at her just then.

jnbiche 7y ago

As someone who maintains open source software, I sympathize with the author and agree that he doesn't owe users personalized help. However, he does have to comply with the legal requirements of the license he uses. Personally, I don't use GPL/LGPL licenses, but if I did, I'd be careful to comply with the provisions of the license.

shakna 7y ago
> However, he does have to comply with the legal requirements of the license he uses. No, the author doesn't. Not really. The license governs the use of people who don't hold the copyright. That's why the author of a project can just turn around and release under a new license.
- jnbiche 7y ago
  No, that's incorrect. The license governs the conduct of both parties (here, the creator and the users). Yes, he can release new software under a new license, but any past software he released under a certain license, he has to follow those terms. If you come to an agreement with another party (like you agree to license a movie, or book to them), you can't just unilaterally cancel that agreement. That's not how contract law works.
  - dtech 7y ago
    He can release the software under a completely different license. Even if that is the exact same software. He can remove all downloads of the software from the websites etc. He owns the copyright. He cannot prevent people who obtained a version of the software under a license from doing what they want with it under the terms of that license.
    - jnbiche 7y ago
      > He cannot prevent people who obtained a version of the software under a license from doing what they want with it under the terms of that license. And that includes getting the source code for a binary released under the GPL. That's exactly what was at issue.
      - shakna 7y ago
        Those terms don't apply to the original copyright holder. The requirement to release source code is placed on those making use of the license, not on the original holder. > For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. The original licensor receives no freedoms, as the work is theirs to begin with. It doesn't apply to them. "You" refers solely to those accepting the license. If the original licensor hasn't release the source code with the binary at the time, they are under no obligation to do so. Using the particular license doesn't make sense, but they still aren't obligated. There is no legal issue here, only a moral one. And as the community didn't give the developer room to breathe, that has evaporated.