4 ms·

So much this. I'm glad he put this out there. I'll start linking to it too. There seems to be a common misconception about open source. When I release software

So much this. I'm glad he put this out there. I'll start linking to it too. There seems to be a common misconception about open source. When I release software as open source, it does not mean I work for you for free, need to provide you with anything, even need to be nice to you. I may. Or I may not. When I release software under an open source license, then we have a very specific deal. You are entitled to do certain things with the software, for example use it free of charge, or change it, or redistribute it, and I'm entitled to certain things in return, for example you keep attribution, you publish changes that you made under the same license, etc. Nothing more, nothing less. I could be an individual that hacked something in their free time, or I'm a multi-national mega-corp. Does not matter. It just means we have a deal. It's nice if a community emerges, and if I feel like it, I may participate in it. And accept pull requests or help with troubleshooting or implement new features. But I don't have to and I don't have to feel any obligation whatsoever. Anybody who thinks otherwise has misunderstood the concept or is maliciously misusing it. That's it. This is misunderstood not just by users, but even by creators themselves. They feel pressure, they feel bad if they don't respond in time, or implement new requested features, or accept pull requests. They shouldn't. Open source just means I published it once with a very specific deal. I may continue to do so if it makes sense to me, but I can also just stop doing so. I implement features when I have a reason for it, for example I like to have them in the software so I can use them myself, or maybe because I'm a corp that sees a business need. But implementing them for free just because somebody asked for it, that's just asking for trouble. If you do that regularly, and not mostly because you think it's fun, but because you want to "support the community" or whatnot, you are taking steps towards burnout, and ultimately are not just hurting yourself but even the larger community, because you are fostering the expectation that that's what open source devs should do. No, they shouldn't. That's not what open source is about. It's about a specific deal. Nothing more, nothing less.

enraged_camel 5y ago
I will preface this by saying I have immense respect for anyone who open-sources their work. I think the web as we know it today would not exist without such kind and hard-working individuals. In my opinion, I think most of these issues outlined in the article are caused by lack of communication combined with unclear expectations, to be honest. The only thing I ask of open-source library authors/maintainers is this: be upfront and clear about the nature of your library, and your level of commitment. Is it just a hobby app? Totally fine, just put in bold text "this is a hobby app, not recommended for production use". That way, everyone knows what to expect, and if they do decide to use it in production, they do it at their own risk. Do you feel that it is feature-complete? Then just say so, and indicate you will not be doing any more work on it. Do you want to work on bugs whenever you feel like it? Nothing wrong with that, it's your work, but again, please just put it somewhere in writing so that any developer or PM who comes across your library knows exactly what to expect. You painstakingly supported a library for years, got burned out and want to quit? At least try to pass it to another maintainer. IMO these are just some very, very basic things that open-source authors can do that would alleviate a LOT of the friction that occurs in this space between them and those who decide to rely on their work. Be kind, be clear, be upfront. That's it!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- chrisshroba 5y ago
  I agree with you. There was a comment on here at some point that if you have a solution that starts “If everybody would just...”, then you don’t have a solution at all. Everybody will not just respect open source maintainers (well deserved) right to not be harassed, poked, and prodded. I 1000% agree that open source contributors and maintainers don’t owe anyone anything, but if people still demand things, I’d recommend putting disclaimers like you’re recommending front and center, if at the very least so that maintainers can respond to the pushy people with a link to it.
- yawaramin 5y ago
  The OP is an article doing literally exactly what you want. And he's going above and beyond what's required–he didn't even need to communicate all this redundantly. It's already all in the open source license–willingness to work, level of commitment, etc. Just read the license. It's included in every open source project.
  - account42 5y ago
    Exactly, here is the first sentence of the zlib license: > This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. Almost all open-source licenses will have conditions like this, MOST EVEN MAKE IT ALL CAPS. The default expectation of support from the author should be 0.0
- cycomanic 5y ago
  So your solution to open source authors getting too many demands for doing things is to demand they should do more? Seriously, this feels almost a bit like victim blaming. Why would an OSS maintainer need to write that something is a hobby project. It really doesn't matter, if as a company you want to rely on it, pay for it. Why should your expectations change because of what the maintainer says?
- jjav 5y ago
  > be upfront and clear about the nature of your library, and your level of commitment The clear statement on this is in the license of the project. You need to read the license, which grants you certain rights to the software to see what you're being granted and what you're not getting. In nearly every license, very specifically says that it's not supported and you're entirely on your own if you decide to use it. If you need a higher level of assurance, you need to pay for support. Either from the author(s) if they are interested, or from third party companies who provide support for that library, if any exist.

enraged_camel 5y ago

I will preface this by saying I have immense respect for anyone who open-sources their work. I think the web as we know it today would not exist without such kind and hard-working individuals. In my opinion, I think most of these issues outlined in the article are caused by lack of communication combined with unclear expectations, to be honest. The only thing I ask of open-source library authors/maintainers is this: be upfront and clear about the nature of your library, and your level of commitment. Is it just a hobby app? Totally fine, just put in bold text "this is a hobby app, not recommended for production use". That way, everyone knows what to expect, and if they do decide to use it in production, they do it at their own risk. Do you feel that it is feature-complete? Then just say so, and indicate you will not be doing any more work on it. Do you want to work on bugs whenever you feel like it? Nothing wrong with that, it's your work, but again, please just put it somewhere in writing so that any developer or PM who comes across your library knows exactly what to expect. You painstakingly supported a library for years, got burned out and want to quit? At least try to pass it to another maintainer. IMO these are just some very, very basic things that open-source authors can do that would alleviate a LOT of the friction that occurs in this space between them and those who decide to rely on their work. Be kind, be clear, be upfront. That's it!

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
chrisshroba 5y ago
I agree with you. There was a comment on here at some point that if you have a solution that starts “If everybody would just...”, then you don’t have a solution at all. Everybody will not just respect open source maintainers (well deserved) right to not be harassed, poked, and prodded. I 1000% agree that open source contributors and maintainers don’t owe anyone anything, but if people still demand things, I’d recommend putting disclaimers like you’re recommending front and center, if at the very least so that maintainers can respond to the pushy people with a link to it.
yawaramin 5y ago
The OP is an article doing literally exactly what you want. And he's going above and beyond what's required–he didn't even need to communicate all this redundantly. It's already all in the open source license–willingness to work, level of commitment, etc. Just read the license. It's included in every open source project.
- account42 5y ago
  Exactly, here is the first sentence of the zlib license: > This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. Almost all open-source licenses will have conditions like this, MOST EVEN MAKE IT ALL CAPS. The default expectation of support from the author should be 0.0
cycomanic 5y ago
So your solution to open source authors getting too many demands for doing things is to demand they should do more? Seriously, this feels almost a bit like victim blaming. Why would an OSS maintainer need to write that something is a hobby project. It really doesn't matter, if as a company you want to rely on it, pay for it. Why should your expectations change because of what the maintainer says?
jjav 5y ago
> be upfront and clear about the nature of your library, and your level of commitment The clear statement on this is in the license of the project. You need to read the license, which grants you certain rights to the software to see what you're being granted and what you're not getting. In nearly every license, very specifically says that it's not supported and you're entirely on your own if you decide to use it. If you need a higher level of assurance, you need to pay for support. Either from the author(s) if they are interested, or from third party companies who provide support for that library, if any exist.