4 ms·

> When corporations sponsor the maintenance of the FOSS projects they use, they are effectively buying an insurance policy that guarantees a prompt, well-coordi

> When corporations sponsor the maintenance of the FOSS projects they use, they are effectively buying an insurance policy that guarantees a prompt, well-coordinated response to security problems. Unless there's a contract explicitly stating so, this is not true whatsoever. If you want an "insurance policy" of this kind, hire the maintainer or pay for an actual support contract from them. Donations are exactly that, donations. Maintainers are under no obligation to do anything for you just because you donated money to them. There is a reason most FOSS licenses include a NO WARRANTY, PROVIDED AS-IS clause.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
While contracts matter,relationships are also a thing - if you are donating and they are developing, you are funding development.
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  As a volunteer maintainer, if you want to donate money to one of my projects it’s because you find enough value in my work then you are free to do so to help continue development. If you want to donate money in order to exert some kind of control over how I spend my time, please keep your money.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    That's why I wrote "funding", not "controlling"
    - rubyist5eva 5y ago
      Many people believe these things are nearly inexorably linked.
Bancakes 5y ago
They are under moral obligation in the sense that they need to make the donators happy to keep getting donations.
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  They may choose to oblige but they are under no obligation, moral or not. You can’t sue a maintainer for not fixing a security issue if it’s not part of a contract, and the license is explicit about being As Is No Warranty. If you don’t like it, fix it yourself in a fork.
- seoaeu 5y ago
  Keeping donors happy to get more donations isn't related to morality. It is completely acceptable morally speaking to accept donations and then later decide to stop working on a project. Whether people will keep donating is entirely a pragmatic question
  - Bancakes 5y ago
    If you, as a hypothetical FOSS leader, end up losing a major donor, you've failed as a leader.
mountainb 5y ago
This would be an example of someone using a loose metaphor when they should be using the thing that they are supposed to be invoking with a figure of speech. To get insurance, you want to pay for and write an insurance contract. The arrangement should be calculated on the same basis as insurance. If you do not actually want insurance and want a dedicated assurance that a FOSS project will be patched quickly, you don't want insurance, you want a contractual guarantee from some individual or group that it will happen when the event triggers, and you have to be prepared to enforce that contract through whatever legal mechanisms are available. By thinking this through we can also see that 'insurance' was a weak metaphor in the first place. In a situation like the underlying one, you don't just need a contract to pay out cash: you actually need labor to fix the vulnerability immediately.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

While contracts matter,relationships are also a thing - if you are donating and they are developing, you are funding development.

rubyist5eva 5y ago
As a volunteer maintainer, if you want to donate money to one of my projects it’s because you find enough value in my work then you are free to do so to help continue development. If you want to donate money in order to exert some kind of control over how I spend my time, please keep your money.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  That's why I wrote "funding", not "controlling"
  - rubyist5eva 5y ago
    Many people believe these things are nearly inexorably linked.

Bancakes 5y ago

They are under moral obligation in the sense that they need to make the donators happy to keep getting donations.

rubyist5eva 5y ago
They may choose to oblige but they are under no obligation, moral or not. You can’t sue a maintainer for not fixing a security issue if it’s not part of a contract, and the license is explicit about being As Is No Warranty. If you don’t like it, fix it yourself in a fork.
seoaeu 5y ago
Keeping donors happy to get more donations isn't related to morality. It is completely acceptable morally speaking to accept donations and then later decide to stop working on a project. Whether people will keep donating is entirely a pragmatic question
- Bancakes 5y ago
  If you, as a hypothetical FOSS leader, end up losing a major donor, you've failed as a leader.

mountainb 5y ago

This would be an example of someone using a loose metaphor when they should be using the thing that they are supposed to be invoking with a figure of speech. To get insurance, you want to pay for and write an insurance contract. The arrangement should be calculated on the same basis as insurance. If you do not actually want insurance and want a dedicated assurance that a FOSS project will be patched quickly, you don't want insurance, you want a contractual guarantee from some individual or group that it will happen when the event triggers, and you have to be prepared to enforce that contract through whatever legal mechanisms are available. By thinking this through we can also see that 'insurance' was a weak metaphor in the first place. In a situation like the underlying one, you don't just need a contract to pay out cash: you actually need labor to fix the vulnerability immediately.