4 ms·

I agree that it's bad. But not because the maintainer is an asshole. It's because the maintainer doesn't understand the real leverage he has when doing open sou

I agree that it's bad. But not because the maintainer is an asshole. It's because the maintainer doesn't understand the real leverage he has when doing open source. So it's actually more sad than bad. Bad for him, in fact. When you write something to solve your problem (which he correctly states), then publishing it "for free" just because the mere act of doing so comes at almost no cost and even consider it as some kind of philanthropy ("You are welcome, by the way"), that's all really missing the point. Of course you are free to do that, but you are really missing out on the big lever the open source approach hands you. And that lever is that other people come and help the maintainer _for f*ing free_. They encounter a bug and report it -- that's free labor right there! They help him make his software better by pointing out a problem that he likely overlooked. And they help him document problems for other users to be aware of. And often times they help him by providing a patch or a suggestion. They do all of this for free. That's the whole point of open source. Not providing some piece of software for free. That was there already with "Freeware". But the real power comes from the lever. Put it out in the open and have the whole world help you. Linus Torvalds understood that all too well, and still does. He's not a philanthropist. He's pretty rude and selfish (he admits that about himself), and that's exactly why the open source approach worked so well for him.

jitendrac 6y ago
Totally agree. In fact,I do think of Linus Totvald,as a really great maintainer of project. he clearly know when to say no, and when to criticize someone who needed to be. people should read some of his reply in mailings, some of them are gems of communications.
CaptArmchair 6y ago
That depends entirely on the intention with which an author decides to publish their code as open source. That intention could be to forge an active connection with a community of users, or it could simply be to just get it out there to anyone's benefit, rather then have it gathering dust in some private git repository, with no further engagements or obligations on the author's part. The open source license included with the code doesn't say anything about the author's intentions at all. > That's the whole point of open source. The whole point of adding an open source license to your code is to share code with others with virtually no strings attached. That is, neither from the user's side, but also from the author's side. Everything else is just custom and market dynamics. > Linus Torvalds understood that all too well, and still does. He's not a philanthropist. He's pretty rude and selfish (he admits that about himself), and that's exactly why the open source approach worked so well for him. When Linus decided to push the GPL on his code, he couldn't possibly predict or foreshadow that his little hobby project would end up being this successful. His original intention was simply to gather as much feedback as he could to improve his project. In fact, it would take until version 0.12 before he'd add the "GNU copyleft" license. And that's only after some people pointed out to him "Have you considered adding a copyleft license?" [1] [1] https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.12 https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/ol... The open source approach worked well for him because it facilitated the spread of Linux towards key people in large public institutions and commercial organizations for whom Linux simply, accidentally happened to be a good, cost effective fit. Linux was released in 1991 and barely a few years later, with Dell, Red Hat, IBM offering commercial support and Red Hat and VA Linux having IPO's around 1999. Linux wasn't just successful because "open source". It was successful because it turned out to be the right product at the right time at the right place. And that's what really drives development.
hombre_fatal 6y ago
When you call it free labor, you’re missing the other side of the reality. A coworker at a corporation might be working for free on the project I’m working on, but the fact that they make $0 salary doesn’t mean I do any less work when I have to interface with them and work off their contribution. Also, I’m paid $0 for the pleasure. It costed both of us. So, no, free labor really isn’t the right way to see it. It’s more complex than that. When I don’t keep up with PRs and issues, I’m deciding the pay off isn’t worth it in that moment. None of it is free. I have all sorts of projects on Github that you’d have to pay me $1000 to even clone again. I wrote them in one stage of my life that I’m not in anymore. That’s just life. Feel free to fork(tm).
- wildmanx 6y ago
  I don't think we are in disagreement about any of this.

jitendrac 6y ago

Totally agree. In fact,I do think of Linus Totvald,as a really great maintainer of project. he clearly know when to say no, and when to criticize someone who needed to be. people should read some of his reply in mailings, some of them are gems of communications.

CaptArmchair 6y ago

That depends entirely on the intention with which an author decides to publish their code as open source. That intention could be to forge an active connection with a community of users, or it could simply be to just get it out there to anyone's benefit, rather then have it gathering dust in some private git repository, with no further engagements or obligations on the author's part. The open source license included with the code doesn't say anything about the author's intentions at all. > That's the whole point of open source. The whole point of adding an open source license to your code is to share code with others with virtually no strings attached. That is, neither from the user's side, but also from the author's side. Everything else is just custom and market dynamics. > Linus Torvalds understood that all too well, and still does. He's not a philanthropist. He's pretty rude and selfish (he admits that about himself), and that's exactly why the open source approach worked so well for him. When Linus decided to push the GPL on his code, he couldn't possibly predict or foreshadow that his little hobby project would end up being this successful. His original intention was simply to gather as much feedback as he could to improve his project. In fact, it would take until version 0.12 before he'd add the "GNU copyleft" license. And that's only after some people pointed out to him "Have you considered adding a copyleft license?" [1] [1] https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.12 https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/ol... The open source approach worked well for him because it facilitated the spread of Linux towards key people in large public institutions and commercial organizations for whom Linux simply, accidentally happened to be a good, cost effective fit. Linux was released in 1991 and barely a few years later, with Dell, Red Hat, IBM offering commercial support and Red Hat and VA Linux having IPO's around 1999. Linux wasn't just successful because "open source". It was successful because it turned out to be the right product at the right time at the right place. And that's what really drives development.

hombre_fatal 6y ago

When you call it free labor, you’re missing the other side of the reality. A coworker at a corporation might be working for free on the project I’m working on, but the fact that they make $0 salary doesn’t mean I do any less work when I have to interface with them and work off their contribution. Also, I’m paid $0 for the pleasure. It costed both of us. So, no, free labor really isn’t the right way to see it. It’s more complex than that. When I don’t keep up with PRs and issues, I’m deciding the pay off isn’t worth it in that moment. None of it is free. I have all sorts of projects on Github that you’d have to pay me $1000 to even clone again. I wrote them in one stage of my life that I’m not in anymore. That’s just life. Feel free to fork(tm).

wildmanx 6y ago
I don't think we are in disagreement about any of this.