8 ms·

Read the license, it frames the project exactly.

• rakoo 7y ago
  The license is to a project's readme what patent claims are to the rest of the patent document: when there is a conflict, it's the one thing both sides can agree on. However professional and well-presentend the project is, at the end of the day maintainers are doing this primarily because they like it. If they don't like doing something related to the project then no one can blame them for that.
• kllrnohj 7y ago
  The license only frames the projects legal responsibilities. It is entirely unrelated in every way to how the project is run on a day to day basis. Alternatively if we're going to just go strictly by the license then the maintainer deserved all the flames & flak he got. After all, it wasn't against the license, therefore he cannot complain about it. Just like that idea is unreasonable, so too is trying to hide behind the license in this case.
  • bpt3 7y ago
    > The license only frames the projects legal responsibilities. It is entirely unrelated in every way to how the project is run on a day to day basis. You completely missed the point. At the end of the day, the legal obligations are the only ones, and both the Apache and MIT licenses very clearly state that the creator of the software has no obligations to any user. Therefore, any other supposed obligations only exist in the mind of the person who has created them, and do not exist in reality. > Alternatively if we're going to just go strictly by the license then the maintainer deserved all the flames & flak he got. After all, it wasn't against the license, therefore he cannot complain about it. Just like that idea is unreasonable, so too is trying to hide behind the license in this case. Sorry, this doesn't make sense, because you're comparing an explicit statement of liability in the license to the social norm of not being a massive jerk.
    • aidenn0 7y ago
      > You completely missed the point. At the end of the day, the legal obligations are the only ones, and both the Apache and MIT licenses very clearly state that the creator of the software has no obligations to any user. There's a word for people who only fulfill their legal obligations: Assholes.
      • bpt3 7y ago
        > There's a word for people who only fulfill their legal obligations: Assholes. There's also a word for people who expect others to meet their expectations without contributing anything on their end: Assholes. If you explicitly state up front what you're willing to do to support a project, and I come along demand you go above and beyond your stated limitations, who is being unreasonable here?
        • aidenn0 7y ago
          Oh yes, the assholes in this particular situation are without a doubt the people attacking Nikolay over this. However, I read your earlier comment as meaning roughly "anyone who releases any software under an MIT/X11 license has zero obligations to anything regarding that software period" which is something I do disagree with.
          • bpt3 7y ago
            My point is that consumers of software released under licenses which don't obligate the creator to do anything shouldn't expect more from the creator than that. If the creator does act as a "good steward", that's great, but you shouldn't plan on that being the case or be surprised when it isn't.
            • aidenn0 7y ago
              I think we are in agreement, though I wouldn't use the word "expect" in that way.
• slavik81 7y ago
  Every open source project has a warranty disclaimer. It really doesn't tell you anything about how serious the project is.