3 ms·

No, not at all. You don't owe anyone anything - but please consider their demands an indicator of unmet need. Github and other platforms make it easy for users

No, not at all. You don't owe anyone anything - but please consider their demands an indicator of unmet need. Github and other platforms make it easy for users and colleagues to contact project engineers and maintainers with new demands and PRs. You also get so much more exposure and help - but it's not without downside, as you say. Of course, you're free to step up and solve their problems or ignore them. Offer consulting services if you'd like. Thank you for your code and your generosity either way you choose. But, and this is key, if you choose to ignore the issues/requests and/or only accept consulting contracts to fix them: be up front about it in your README. Turn off issues on github and put the fact that you don't accept PRs in your repo notice/description. Now, if you do that, don't be surprised if someone forks your code and picks up the maintainership. Don't try to take back your open source code. Don't complain about the other party's stewardship - a role you explicitly chose to abdicate. Don't sabotage the community. Those are pretty much the very few things that would make you a selfish asshole in my book, friend. Thank you for your code and I'm sorry other people can be real assholes sometimes - especially to people who give their hard work away to prevent others from maybe having to do the same. Fortunately, there are usually others who will step up and help maintain the project and deal with these demanding ungrateful bastards - seek them out openly, they're invaluable friends. If we're upfront and honest with each other about needing help - we're stronger together.

ci5er 7y ago
Hell, I welcome the fork! It's why I toss it over the wall: "This was useful to me for a moment. Maybe it might be for you too. Good luck!"
- justinjlynn 7y ago
  Perfection.
analognoise 7y ago
"Don't try to take back your open source code." Why not? It's yours. Burn it to the ground if it is too much trouble, maybe people will stop being ungrateful. We control our code. If we feel like open is good, fine. If we find out it has negative externalities - why put up with that?
- justinjlynn 7y ago
  You don't control copies of your code made under the terms of the irrevocable world-wide license you gave. You don't have to host it, but you can't stop other people from doing so. Copies of your code are effectively no longer yours once you've licensed your code. So, essentially your code, as it was, is no longer yours. You don't own it in any meaningful way. Deal with that fact or don't post it in the first place.
  - api 7y ago
    That's not true unless the license specifically transfers ownership or it's just public domain with no license at all. In the latter case jurisdictions differ in how they interpret that. I dislike the sentiment here. Open source was supposed to be a mutual gift culture, not a take culture.
    - justinjlynn 7y ago
      That you no longer own your code is effectively true. It is also not true. Of course, you likely still own the copyright - the sole legal right to distribute copies of the code. The thing is, copyleft - the prime principle under which open source and free software operate - is a brilliant legal hack; it makes owning the copyright essentially meaningless. You see, as owning the copyright means that only you have the right to distribute your code, free software/open source licences make that ownership meaningless by granting a licence to anyone who has the code the right to distribute the code - under certain terms, usually the same terms as under which they themselves were allowed to distribute the code. That is, you may still own the copyright on copyleft licensed code - but the distinction of owning that copyright is pointless because its purpose and benefit is replaced by that of mere possession and distribution. The copyright becomes effectively worthless and even more worthless if you incorporate other's copyleft licensed work into your own - because then you can no longer easily re-license it. Hence 'copyleft': it turns copyright on its head. Still, you're technically right; so, congratulations for that, I suppose. ¯ \_(ツ)_/¯ Open Source/Free Software cultures are mutual gift cultures. It's just that no take-backs are allowed. If they were the whole exercise would be pointless.

ci5er 7y ago

Hell, I welcome the fork! It's why I toss it over the wall: "This was useful to me for a moment. Maybe it might be for you too. Good luck!"

justinjlynn 7y ago
Perfection.

analognoise 7y ago

"Don't try to take back your open source code." Why not? It's yours. Burn it to the ground if it is too much trouble, maybe people will stop being ungrateful. We control our code. If we feel like open is good, fine. If we find out it has negative externalities - why put up with that?

justinjlynn 7y ago
You don't control copies of your code made under the terms of the irrevocable world-wide license you gave. You don't have to host it, but you can't stop other people from doing so. Copies of your code are effectively no longer yours once you've licensed your code. So, essentially your code, as it was, is no longer yours. You don't own it in any meaningful way. Deal with that fact or don't post it in the first place.
- api 7y ago
  That's not true unless the license specifically transfers ownership or it's just public domain with no license at all. In the latter case jurisdictions differ in how they interpret that. I dislike the sentiment here. Open source was supposed to be a mutual gift culture, not a take culture.
  - justinjlynn 7y ago
    That you no longer own your code is effectively true. It is also not true. Of course, you likely still own the copyright - the sole legal right to distribute copies of the code. The thing is, copyleft - the prime principle under which open source and free software operate - is a brilliant legal hack; it makes owning the copyright essentially meaningless. You see, as owning the copyright means that only you have the right to distribute your code, free software/open source licences make that ownership meaningless by granting a licence to anyone who has the code the right to distribute the code - under certain terms, usually the same terms as under which they themselves were allowed to distribute the code. That is, you may still own the copyright on copyleft licensed code - but the distinction of owning that copyright is pointless because its purpose and benefit is replaced by that of mere possession and distribution. The copyright becomes effectively worthless and even more worthless if you incorporate other's copyleft licensed work into your own - because then you can no longer easily re-license it. Hence 'copyleft': it turns copyright on its head. Still, you're technically right; so, congratulations for that, I suppose. ¯ \_(ツ)_/¯ Open Source/Free Software cultures are mutual gift cultures. It's just that no take-backs are allowed. If they were the whole exercise would be pointless.