5 ms·

The aftermath of “No, 'Open Source' does not mean 'Includes Free Support'”

33 points by EMIRELADERO 6y ago

neonate 6y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20201225054611/https://raccoon.onyxbits.de/blog/reactions-bugreport-free-support/ https://web.archive.org/web/20201225054611/https://raccoon.o...
diebeforei485 6y ago
If someone wanted to start a subreddit for community support for this app are they prevented from doing so in any way?
- seba_dos1 6y ago
  Of course not.
voxl 6y ago
Good article. I think most people work on Open Source because they _want_ to foster a community around their work and see it grow into a life of its own. In that regard its not surprising most Open Source projects offer free support initially and slowly try to incorporate other maintainers who also offer free support! This is ideologically good, but I wonder if it is really sustainable. The culture that feels entitled to free support definitely needs to be rejected however.
- ci5er 6y ago
  > The culture that feels entitled to free support definitely needs to be rejected however. I have unpubished every open-source package I put out there (small as they were) because of the incessant demands from people who were not paying me to do whatever they demanded of me. It was demeaning and demoralizing. In the 80s/90s, I would have just tossed a tar-ball over the wall and say "good luck - feel free to use it, if it suites your needs), but in the age of github, all sorts of folk show up demanding that I do this that or the other, with no offer of payment. My response was: "Look! You have the source code. Do what you want to it to make it fit your needs better. You can even do a pull request.". They didn't want to do that - they just wanted me to work for them for free. I opted out of the entire situation by unpublishing all of my previously published works. * None of the packages were significant. One was a Flask-based SaaS-in-a-Box thing with home screens, user accounts, log-in (auth), payments and various utilities. The other was an early Pixar-era ray-tracer (renderer) that was slow, but very extensible and capable of making pretty pictures of landscapes and other things like caustics.
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    Unpublishing is a bit of an overreaction; on github and gitlab you can just turn off project issues.
- joshspankit 6y ago
  As someone who’s fascinated by psychology, I wonder what the why is at the root of the “want to foster a community around their work and see it grow into a life of it’s own”. And secondly: whether successfully doing so ever consistently answers that why.
m463 6y ago
Fun writing. Yeah, kind of strange to charge for a bug. If I were doing it, I would probably have a 'bug dropbox' but I haven't run a one-person open-source project and met reality head-on. I read his other articles, and loved this quote: Back in the day, multitasking on Windows meant: being able to crash two programs simultaneously. https://raccoon.onyxbits.de/blog/why-not-use-github/ https://raccoon.onyxbits.de/blog/why-not-use-github/
- AndrewDucker 6y ago
  He deals with any bugs that impact a paying customer. Everyone else can fix their own bugs.
- joshspankit 6y ago
  Totally unrelated, but one of my fav stories: Back in the day I was in a 4-lane BBS and someone came on to brag about getting Windows (they managed to get a leaked beta or something, about a month before retail). After a few minutes of their bragging falling on deaf ears they said “I could be playing Doom right now [while talking to you in a separate window]!” I thought that was the most nonsense ability to brag about because clearly you couldn’t actually focus on both and to drive home the point I said “Yeah, but would you be winning?” Fair play: I was a bit of a jerk at the time
new_realist 6y ago
When will GNU publish a license requiring anyone who uses GPL source to provide free support for their changes? After all, there is more to using software than simply having the source code. Can source without support really be considered free?
- Aeronwen 6y ago
  >When will GNU publish a license requiring anyone who uses GPL source to provide free support for their changes? The second never after next never. Give or take a few nevers.
- seba_dos1 6y ago
  Not sure if you're serious or sarcastic, but let's assume you're being serious. > Can source without support really be considered free? Yes, of course. With FLOSS, you don't need support from the software provider, because you're free to get that support from anywhere or do it yourself. With proprietary software, there's a monopoly on support since you're not free to study, share, modify and execute the code for any purpose.
- CarelessExpert 6y ago
  I have a sneaking suspicion you're thinking of free as in beer, rather than free as in freedom. Obviously open source with a suitable license but without support is free as in freedom. If you can take the code, modify it, and redistribute it, then it's free software. It's only free as in beer if you're time isn't worth anything.
- carljhonson 6y ago
  The software already are free
Arnt 6y ago
I think the core issue there is an expectation that fixing bugs is not an optional part of programming. On one sense, Raccoon is an unmaintained program from the point of view of some users, namely the ones who have the source and act as though they don't. We might not have this problem if people had to build from source. But not needing to build from source is a fine thing and worth some pain.
derekja 6y ago
I didn't see anything unreasonable in the article. Turning off issues might be easier than ignoring them, but if they are useful for some other reason I don't see the controversy over ignoring them.

33 points by EMIRELADERO 6y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20201225054611/https://raccoon.onyxbits.de/blog/reactions-bugreport-free-support/ https://web.archive.org/web/20201225054611/https://raccoon.o...

diebeforei485 6y ago

If someone wanted to start a subreddit for community support for this app are they prevented from doing so in any way?

seba_dos1 6y ago
Of course not.

voxl 6y ago

Good article. I think most people work on Open Source because they _want_ to foster a community around their work and see it grow into a life of its own. In that regard its not surprising most Open Source projects offer free support initially and slowly try to incorporate other maintainers who also offer free support! This is ideologically good, but I wonder if it is really sustainable. The culture that feels entitled to free support definitely needs to be rejected however.

ci5er 6y ago
> The culture that feels entitled to free support definitely needs to be rejected however. I have unpubished every open-source package I put out there (small as they were) because of the incessant demands from people who were not paying me to do whatever they demanded of me. It was demeaning and demoralizing. In the 80s/90s, I would have just tossed a tar-ball over the wall and say "good luck - feel free to use it, if it suites your needs), but in the age of github, all sorts of folk show up demanding that I do this that or the other, with no offer of payment. My response was: "Look! You have the source code. Do what you want to it to make it fit your needs better. You can even do a pull request.". They didn't want to do that - they just wanted me to work for them for free. I opted out of the entire situation by unpublishing all of my previously published works. * None of the packages were significant. One was a Flask-based SaaS-in-a-Box thing with home screens, user accounts, log-in (auth), payments and various utilities. The other was an early Pixar-era ray-tracer (renderer) that was slow, but very extensible and capable of making pretty pictures of landscapes and other things like caustics.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  Unpublishing is a bit of an overreaction; on github and gitlab you can just turn off project issues.
joshspankit 6y ago
As someone who’s fascinated by psychology, I wonder what the why is at the root of the “want to foster a community around their work and see it grow into a life of it’s own”. And secondly: whether successfully doing so ever consistently answers that why.

m463 6y ago

Fun writing. Yeah, kind of strange to charge for a bug. If I were doing it, I would probably have a 'bug dropbox' but I haven't run a one-person open-source project and met reality head-on. I read his other articles, and loved this quote: Back in the day, multitasking on Windows meant: being able to crash two programs simultaneously. https://raccoon.onyxbits.de/blog/why-not-use-github/ https://raccoon.onyxbits.de/blog/why-not-use-github/

AndrewDucker 6y ago
He deals with any bugs that impact a paying customer. Everyone else can fix their own bugs.
joshspankit 6y ago
Totally unrelated, but one of my fav stories: Back in the day I was in a 4-lane BBS and someone came on to brag about getting Windows (they managed to get a leaked beta or something, about a month before retail). After a few minutes of their bragging falling on deaf ears they said “I could be playing Doom right now [while talking to you in a separate window]!” I thought that was the most nonsense ability to brag about because clearly you couldn’t actually focus on both and to drive home the point I said “Yeah, but would you be winning?” Fair play: I was a bit of a jerk at the time

new_realist 6y ago

When will GNU publish a license requiring anyone who uses GPL source to provide free support for their changes? After all, there is more to using software than simply having the source code. Can source without support really be considered free?

Aeronwen 6y ago
>When will GNU publish a license requiring anyone who uses GPL source to provide free support for their changes? The second never after next never. Give or take a few nevers.
seba_dos1 6y ago
Not sure if you're serious or sarcastic, but let's assume you're being serious. > Can source without support really be considered free? Yes, of course. With FLOSS, you don't need support from the software provider, because you're free to get that support from anywhere or do it yourself. With proprietary software, there's a monopoly on support since you're not free to study, share, modify and execute the code for any purpose.
CarelessExpert 6y ago
I have a sneaking suspicion you're thinking of free as in beer, rather than free as in freedom. Obviously open source with a suitable license but without support is free as in freedom. If you can take the code, modify it, and redistribute it, then it's free software. It's only free as in beer if you're time isn't worth anything.
carljhonson 6y ago
The software already are free

Arnt 6y ago

I think the core issue there is an expectation that fixing bugs is not an optional part of programming. On one sense, Raccoon is an unmaintained program from the point of view of some users, namely the ones who have the source and act as though they don't. We might not have this problem if people had to build from source. But not needing to build from source is a fine thing and worth some pain.

derekja 6y ago

I didn't see anything unreasonable in the article. Turning off issues might be easier than ignoring them, but if they are useful for some other reason I don't see the controversy over ignoring them.