4 ms·

I read more than two thirds of this blog post before realizing the author doesn’t seem to agree with this guy he quoted: > Then drop it and let someone else ma

by ixtli 7y ago

I read more than two thirds of this blog post before realizing the author doesn’t seem to agree with this guy he quoted: > Then drop it and let someone else maintain it. To be clear, if maintenance of a popular open source project is too much for you then stop. Taking your marbles and going home is childish, if the authors third party analysis of the motives behind Fleischer‘s behavior is to be believed. The post says on one hand that he never financially benefited but then on the other hand that he’s justified in obscuring the source because maintenance is onerous.

vosper 7y ago
Rather than "taking [his] marbles and going home" isn't it more like he's exercising his right to finally get paid after working for free for the benefit of others (including, presumably, many commercial users who aren't kicking in a cent) for a very long time?
dmitriid 7y ago
It's not childish. That's the main problem with open source as a whole: devs expect somebody else to maintain projects indefinitely long, for free. This is what's unsustainable. See "Software below poverty line": https://staltz.com/software-below-the-poverty-line.html https://staltz.com/software-below-the-poverty-line.html
- oefrha 7y ago
  As discussed in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20174418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20174418, with comments from devs represented in that "Software below poverty line" article, the interpretation from the article is seriously flawed.
  - dmitriid 7y ago
    I've skimmed through comments and I can't agree with your conclusion. Most comments are: - it's true - exploitation is a wrong term - you don't take into account devs who are already employees and work on OSS
IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
How is "...then stop" different from "Taking your marbles and going home"? They didn't remove previously-published source code. So you can use the last open release in both scenarios, and the license change only adds the option of getting the maintained version under a commercial license. The commercial version probably isn't useful in many scenarios, but by the simple rules of logic, having any additional option(s) can never be worse than having fewer options. It is, however, somewhat shady to implement this license change without announcing it. Indeed I seem to remember being quite confused by this recently. I also just don't understand why that tactic was chosen? If you want to sell software, it tends not to hurt to make people aware of options to give you money.

by ixtli 7y ago

vosper 7y ago

Rather than "taking [his] marbles and going home" isn't it more like he's exercising his right to finally get paid after working for free for the benefit of others (including, presumably, many commercial users who aren't kicking in a cent) for a very long time?

dmitriid 7y ago

It's not childish. That's the main problem with open source as a whole: devs expect somebody else to maintain projects indefinitely long, for free. This is what's unsustainable. See "Software below poverty line": https://staltz.com/software-below-the-poverty-line.html https://staltz.com/software-below-the-poverty-line.html

oefrha 7y ago
As discussed in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20174418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20174418, with comments from devs represented in that "Software below poverty line" article, the interpretation from the article is seriously flawed.
- dmitriid 7y ago
  I've skimmed through comments and I can't agree with your conclusion. Most comments are: - it's true - exploitation is a wrong term - you don't take into account devs who are already employees and work on OSS

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago

How is "...then stop" different from "Taking your marbles and going home"? They didn't remove previously-published source code. So you can use the last open release in both scenarios, and the license change only adds the option of getting the maintained version under a commercial license. The commercial version probably isn't useful in many scenarios, but by the simple rules of logic, having any additional option(s) can never be worse than having fewer options. It is, however, somewhat shady to implement this license change without announcing it. Indeed I seem to remember being quite confused by this recently. I also just don't understand why that tactic was chosen? If you want to sell software, it tends not to hurt to make people aware of options to give you money.