3 ms·

I'm fortunate enough to have been paid to do open source code for the last ~10 years or so. I am thus a huge open source & free source advocate, and I am comple

by otikik 7y ago

I'm fortunate enough to have been paid to do open source code for the last ~10 years or so. I am thus a huge open source & free source advocate, and I am completely biased for it. I think everything done here seems legal, because BSD licensing pretty much allows for this (I am not a lawyer though, and I haven't examined how things were with third-party contributions for example). Morally, the only fault I can say on the maintainer's behavior is a lack of transparency. This kind of decisive move ideally should be accompanied by an equally decisive communication effort. Trying to do this "quietly" isn't an option when a big number of users and/or big players are involved (as it seems Google is involved to some extent).

m000 7y ago
> Morally, the only fault I can say on the maintainer's behavior is a lack of transparency. Totally agree with that. The maintainer seems to have made very little effort to get compensated for his work. It would surely be nice if some company stepped-up and offered to sponsor the development of the project. But it's also kind of childish to scheme and hold grudges for not getting something you never bothered asking for. Other open-source developers have been in a similar position in the past, but the handling of the situation was much more transparent and considerate. Off the top of my head, I can remember the example of Synergy [1]. When the developer needed support, he announced well in advance the changes to the model of development. And actually put the time to spin-up a company around the project, and offer ways for normal users to support development. [1] https://symless.com/synergy https://symless.com/synergy
- CathedralBorrow 7y ago
  > "But it's also kind of childish to scheme and hold grudges for not getting something you never bothered asking for." When you state that he never bothered asking for something, what are you basing that on?
hmottestad 7y ago
I'm very happy for you getting paid to contribute to open source. I wish I could find someone willing to sponsor me. My field is fairly narrow though with few users and not that much commercial action.
- otikik 7y ago
  Just to clarify. I'm not "sponsored". I am payed to do software. Something someone else wants done. I wouldn't work on it on my free time. But it's still open source.

by otikik 7y ago

m000 7y ago

> Morally, the only fault I can say on the maintainer's behavior is a lack of transparency. Totally agree with that. The maintainer seems to have made very little effort to get compensated for his work. It would surely be nice if some company stepped-up and offered to sponsor the development of the project. But it's also kind of childish to scheme and hold grudges for not getting something you never bothered asking for. Other open-source developers have been in a similar position in the past, but the handling of the situation was much more transparent and considerate. Off the top of my head, I can remember the example of Synergy [1]. When the developer needed support, he announced well in advance the changes to the model of development. And actually put the time to spin-up a company around the project, and offer ways for normal users to support development. [1] https://symless.com/synergy https://symless.com/synergy

CathedralBorrow 7y ago
> "But it's also kind of childish to scheme and hold grudges for not getting something you never bothered asking for." When you state that he never bothered asking for something, what are you basing that on?

hmottestad 7y ago

I'm very happy for you getting paid to contribute to open source. I wish I could find someone willing to sponsor me. My field is fairly narrow though with few users and not that much commercial action.

otikik 7y ago
Just to clarify. I'm not "sponsored". I am payed to do software. Something someone else wants done. I wouldn't work on it on my free time. But it's still open source.