5 ms·

And this is why I honestly don't ever want to release an open-source project. At the very least, I'm not going to make it easy for people to contribute. I'll k

And this is why I honestly don't ever want to release an open-source project. At the very least, I'm not going to make it easy for people to contribute. I'll keep the git repo private, go without a ticketing system, and just post tarballs full of code on a self-hosted website (I guess like the NetHack team used to do before 3.6, but they had a ticketing system, and I wouldn't). Maybe I'll even use a non-free license just to reinforce my "you take what you can get" policy.

pjc50 7y ago
Why? I mean, if you're that hostile to collaboration, why not just keep it closed source and maybe try to charge for it?
- wolfgke 7y ago
  > Why? I mean, if you're that hostile to collaboration, why not just keep it closed source and maybe try to charge for it? - There exist open source licenses (with copyleft) that disallow making it closed source. - There exist other reasons to publish the source code: for example allowing the user to study it.
- amyjess 7y ago
  Python is my language of choice, so posting projects means publishing the source code.
  - wolrah 7y ago
    > Python is my language of choice, so posting projects means publishing the source code. Technically you could just post the .pyc bytecode as long as you didn't care about it working on anything but CPython and compatible implementations.
    - JanisL 7y ago
      This might make it a bit harder for someone but wouldn't really stop people from reverse engineering it.
- xscott 7y ago
  If I write something useful, I'm willing to share it with people when I can. It makes me happy knowing I contributed something that might make the world a smidge better. That doesn't mean I'm willing to accept your patch. As soon as I accept collaboration, I need to worry about copyright on the contributions, whether they follow my coding style, and whether I'm willing to accept additional complexity for features I don't care about.
rectang 7y ago
> Maybe I'll even use a non-free license just to reinforce my "you take what you can get" policy. Consider CC0 instead. As a veteran open source contributor, I totally understand that dealing with open source communities has a huge cost to go with the huge benefit. Even just vetting patches can be a pain when you care about security and architecture and don't want to spend time endlessly explaining your choices. CC0 allows you to provide maximum benefit should you opt out of "social coding". People can go ahead and fork your stuff, or just use bits and pieces, without needing to deal with licensing or crediting headaches. (Significant consumers still have to track provenance, though.)
- juped 7y ago
  Please don't blindly attempt dedication of your works to the public domain based on this comment.
  - rectang 7y ago
    What is your objection? Do we have a disagreement about licensing, for instance because you'd advocate a copyleft license instead? Or do you disagree with the notion that open source contributors should have the option of opting out of social coding? Certainly I would expect amyjess and anyone else reading to exercise due skepticism and perform their own research and I respect them enough to expect that they will "consider" my suggestion rather than "blindly" follow it.
    - juped 7y ago
      I think people shouldn't ill-informedly attempt to waive their legal rights, especially not in ways that are legally murky, and I think people shouldn't ill-informedly encourage others to waive legal rights in murky ways they may not be aware of. You didn't even mention "public domain" once and implied "CC0" was a form of license, despite attempting a public domain dedication being a very different thing from licensing copyrighted works.
      - rectang 7y ago

pjc50 7y ago

Why? I mean, if you're that hostile to collaboration, why not just keep it closed source and maybe try to charge for it?

wolfgke 7y ago
> Why? I mean, if you're that hostile to collaboration, why not just keep it closed source and maybe try to charge for it? - There exist open source licenses (with copyleft) that disallow making it closed source. - There exist other reasons to publish the source code: for example allowing the user to study it.
amyjess 7y ago
Python is my language of choice, so posting projects means publishing the source code.
- wolrah 7y ago
  > Python is my language of choice, so posting projects means publishing the source code. Technically you could just post the .pyc bytecode as long as you didn't care about it working on anything but CPython and compatible implementations.
  - JanisL 7y ago
    This might make it a bit harder for someone but wouldn't really stop people from reverse engineering it.
xscott 7y ago
If I write something useful, I'm willing to share it with people when I can. It makes me happy knowing I contributed something that might make the world a smidge better. That doesn't mean I'm willing to accept your patch. As soon as I accept collaboration, I need to worry about copyright on the contributions, whether they follow my coding style, and whether I'm willing to accept additional complexity for features I don't care about.

rectang 7y ago

> Maybe I'll even use a non-free license just to reinforce my "you take what you can get" policy. Consider CC0 instead. As a veteran open source contributor, I totally understand that dealing with open source communities has a huge cost to go with the huge benefit. Even just vetting patches can be a pain when you care about security and architecture and don't want to spend time endlessly explaining your choices. CC0 allows you to provide maximum benefit should you opt out of "social coding". People can go ahead and fork your stuff, or just use bits and pieces, without needing to deal with licensing or crediting headaches. (Significant consumers still have to track provenance, though.)

juped 7y ago
Please don't blindly attempt dedication of your works to the public domain based on this comment.
- rectang 7y ago
  What is your objection? Do we have a disagreement about licensing, for instance because you'd advocate a copyleft license instead? Or do you disagree with the notion that open source contributors should have the option of opting out of social coding? Certainly I would expect amyjess and anyone else reading to exercise due skepticism and perform their own research and I respect them enough to expect that they will "consider" my suggestion rather than "blindly" follow it.
  - juped 7y ago
    I think people shouldn't ill-informedly attempt to waive their legal rights, especially not in ways that are legally murky, and I think people shouldn't ill-informedly encourage others to waive legal rights in murky ways they may not be aware of. You didn't even mention "public domain" once and implied "CC0" was a form of license, despite attempting a public domain dedication being a very different thing from licensing copyrighted works.
    - rectang 7y ago