3 ms·

This seems like another example of people taking open source for granted. Software takes time and effort to create, and in return for that effort the author rec

This seems like another example of people taking open source for granted. Software takes time and effort to create, and in return for that effort the author receives ownership and copyright. The author of an open source project can do whatever they want with it - limited only by other legal limitations (such as, it’s illegal to intentionally destroy other people’s properly). In a legal contract, some value (consideration) must be contributed by both sides. What do most people contribute to the open source projects that they use? When the answer is “nothing”, then why do they expect the right to judge the decisions of the author? Sure this is rant-ish. But I’m saying that people sure feel privileged to raise a hue and cry when open source authors make decisions that they don’t agree with. Don’t like it? Fork it - or buy a license that has the terms you want.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
Like any human endeavor, open source contains an implicit expectation that everyone is going to behave reasonably. You can disagree with the author’s arguments that this behavior is unreasonable, but it kinda misses the point to say that open source authors can do whatever they want and nobody has a right to judge them. When I’m a guest in someone’s house, they have every right to do what they want, but if they decide one day to bellow a war cry and start smashing their plates I’m probably not gonna visit again.
- kgilpin 5y ago
  That’s right except in this case, Russia is the house and the open source author is you. They are taking their ball and going home.
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    Well, again, the author is arguing (correctly in my view) that this is understandable but incompatible with the baseline expectations of the community. It’s a basic principle of open source that you won’t go out of your way to stop people from using your code, and a project which tries to prevent all Russian citizens from using it is straightforwardly not “open source” by the OSI definition.
    - kgilpin 5y ago
      It’s the copyright holder who gets to decide, not the OSI.
      - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
        I feel like you're just skipping over the meat of my comments to get in quick zingers and I'm not interested in engaging with that style of conversation any longer. Sorry.
pjmlp 5y ago
For many people out there open source is a way to legally pirate stuff. They would be pirating those tools and libraries if they were commercial. And on top of that they feel entitled to have their critical bugs fixed right away, again for free.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago

Like any human endeavor, open source contains an implicit expectation that everyone is going to behave reasonably. You can disagree with the author’s arguments that this behavior is unreasonable, but it kinda misses the point to say that open source authors can do whatever they want and nobody has a right to judge them. When I’m a guest in someone’s house, they have every right to do what they want, but if they decide one day to bellow a war cry and start smashing their plates I’m probably not gonna visit again.

kgilpin 5y ago
That’s right except in this case, Russia is the house and the open source author is you. They are taking their ball and going home.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  Well, again, the author is arguing (correctly in my view) that this is understandable but incompatible with the baseline expectations of the community. It’s a basic principle of open source that you won’t go out of your way to stop people from using your code, and a project which tries to prevent all Russian citizens from using it is straightforwardly not “open source” by the OSI definition.
  - kgilpin 5y ago
    It’s the copyright holder who gets to decide, not the OSI.
    - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
      I feel like you're just skipping over the meat of my comments to get in quick zingers and I'm not interested in engaging with that style of conversation any longer. Sorry.

pjmlp 5y ago

For many people out there open source is a way to legally pirate stuff. They would be pirating those tools and libraries if they were commercial. And on top of that they feel entitled to have their critical bugs fixed right away, again for free.