7 ms·

> If your free software project suddenly gets popular, you gain resources: testers, developers and people willing to pitch in. I wouldn't even say that this is

> If your free software project suddenly gets popular, you gain resources: testers, developers and people willing to pitch in. I wouldn't even say that this is true. If your free software project get's popular you get: Users that want their feautures built and don't want to build it themselves; PRs that need to be reviewed; Co-maintainers that need to be communicated with; etc. Yes, it also can have upsides, but depending on the project and it's surrounding ecosystem (and culture), it can easily be more demanding that rewarding.

silvestrov 5y ago
You also get users which don't understand a thing and who send you tons of emails and want A++ personal support. Sell the same service for $$$ money and suddenly the users (as a group) are a much nicer bunch. Offering "Free Software" is sometimes like working in retail.
- BlueTemplar 5y ago
  Free software never meant free support, not even for the financial burden of providing source code. (Also why "libre software" is a better term.)
  - aseipp 5y ago
    Go tell that to the people who shit all over the emails and bug trackers of free software developers. The rest of us are well aware.
    - BlueTemplar 5y ago
      I mean the solution to that predates personal computers... https://kk.org/ct2/heinleins-fan-mail-solution/ https://kk.org/ct2/heinleins-fan-mail-solution/
      - aseipp 5y ago
        The original complaint was "demanding and petty users flood you and take up your time, through the same channels your good users do", and your solution seems to be "just go ahead and let them take up your time"? What, is Heinlein's Ghost going to pat me on the back if I do? The reality is there is no real "solution" to this problem; there is no solution to "people are annoying." The very premise is completely ill-formed and only possible in a framework that views all human interaction and behavior as completely mechanical. It's not all bad, though, working on free/libre software, and I'd be remiss to not mention that. Maybe I'm letting it hit too close to home and you're just saying it in jest. But anyone here pretending that you can "solve" these kinds of issues so easily are deluding themselves and telling on themselves at the same time, in my opinion.
        BlueTemplar 5y ago
        > your solution seems to be "just go ahead and let them take up your time"? How did you get this from my link ?? I'm suggesting pre-made answers here to the most typical "time-wasters"...
- svachalek 5y ago
  I've seen this exact effect multiple times. It's really rather amazing, that no one expects as much as someone who's paid absolutely nothing for it. Kind of a divide by zero = infinity in the human firmware or something.
- ddaalluu2 5y ago
  - LandR 5y ago
    > Well to be fair, if you release something to the public you do have a certain responsibility. At least to provide a running configuration without the documentation being behind a payment. If it's free, you have zero responsibility. People can choose to use it or not, I don't think you even have a responsibility to keep it running. If you have a hundred thousand users and you decide tomorrow to just yank it from existence, that's absolutely fine too. It's free, no one forces you to use, don't expect anything. The maintainer might get bored with it, delete it, accidentally break it, or change it just for shits and giggles to fuck with people. It's fine. It's free.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    Entitlement to the extreme. Nobody owes anybody anything by marking something as open source. Take some responsibility.
  - icambron 5y ago
    This is very silly and I urge you to rethink this position. The software is free, it contains a very explicit warranty disclaimer, and the implicit social contract is that nobody owes anyone anything. There is no fraud here. If you download the code I posted to my GitHub account and try to do something with it, and it doesn’t work or you don’t understand it or I didn’t bother writing docs, that is in fact very much on you. Perhaps my software project has lots of docs and I’m super helpful to users, and it is therefore more likely to be popular, or perhaps it does not have those properties and will stay obscure, but either way it is your job to decide what free software to use, not mine to make it up to your standards. I have never seen paywalled OSS docs and it seems like a silly idea, but that doesn’t make it fraudulent or even bad. It just makes it perhaps inadvisable to use. Which again is on you.
- jdrc 5y ago
  Let's agree that it's a global tendency of humans to take advantage of other humans who have shown that they are willing to accept it.
aetherson 5y ago
You get both the demanding users and the giving users, but the point is, the demanding users don't actually cost your open source repo anything. When it's a website, every user is money out of your pocket.
- rapind 5y ago
  Demanding users of OSS at a minimum will cost you time. At worst they can also cost you reputation. At best they can help you improve your project. I think in most cases the entitlement many (most?) users have makes it a net negative these days. At least for popular projects. I think the easiest solution is to charge for support. No issue reports or PRs unless you’re also a paying user.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > I think the easiest solution is to charge for support. No issue reports or PRs unless you’re also a paying user. Agree 100%. Your time and effort isn't free. Users who want some of it should have to provide value in exchange.
  - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
    > No issue reports or PRs unless you’re also a paying user. You'd turn down quality bug-reports and code-contributions in the name of blocking spam? I doubt I'm the only one who would take strong objection to the idea of pay me so that you can work on my project. Open Source software development can be made to scale to the level of the Linux kernel. I don't buy the idea that its principles need to be thrown out in the name of anti-spam practicalities.
    - rapind 5y ago
      > You'd turn down quality bug-reports and code-contributions in the name of blocking spam? Absolutely I’d “risk” it. Even a negligible amount like $10, would reduce the noise significantly. I’d also pay that in a heartbeat as a user. > I don't buy the idea that its principles need to be thrown out in the name of anti-spam practicalities. What “principles” are you referring to?
chefandy 5y ago
I don’t think anyone implied FOSS projects lack obligation— just that it’s more manageable. Uptime (and the related system management,) large monthly withdrawals from your personal checking account, and soliciting donations to recoup some are are constant, recurring obligations more urgent than anything I’ve experienced maintaining repos. Most people shrug and move on if their issues and feature requests get ignored. Even an ignored CVE isn’t going to stop you from paying your rent. Doing your best to get the word out to users (even breaking your code to do so if you’ve got an oft-included but rarely considered library or something), as far as I’m concerned, satisfies your ethical obligations.

silvestrov 5y ago

You also get users which don't understand a thing and who send you tons of emails and want A++ personal support. Sell the same service for $$$ money and suddenly the users (as a group) are a much nicer bunch. Offering "Free Software" is sometimes like working in retail.

BlueTemplar 5y ago
Free software never meant free support, not even for the financial burden of providing source code. (Also why "libre software" is a better term.)
- aseipp 5y ago
  Go tell that to the people who shit all over the emails and bug trackers of free software developers. The rest of us are well aware.
  - BlueTemplar 5y ago
    I mean the solution to that predates personal computers... https://kk.org/ct2/heinleins-fan-mail-solution/ https://kk.org/ct2/heinleins-fan-mail-solution/
    - aseipp 5y ago
      The original complaint was "demanding and petty users flood you and take up your time, through the same channels your good users do", and your solution seems to be "just go ahead and let them take up your time"? What, is Heinlein's Ghost going to pat me on the back if I do? The reality is there is no real "solution" to this problem; there is no solution to "people are annoying." The very premise is completely ill-formed and only possible in a framework that views all human interaction and behavior as completely mechanical. It's not all bad, though, working on free/libre software, and I'd be remiss to not mention that. Maybe I'm letting it hit too close to home and you're just saying it in jest. But anyone here pretending that you can "solve" these kinds of issues so easily are deluding themselves and telling on themselves at the same time, in my opinion.
      - BlueTemplar 5y ago
        > your solution seems to be "just go ahead and let them take up your time"? How did you get this from my link ?? I'm suggesting pre-made answers here to the most typical "time-wasters"...
svachalek 5y ago
I've seen this exact effect multiple times. It's really rather amazing, that no one expects as much as someone who's paid absolutely nothing for it. Kind of a divide by zero = infinity in the human firmware or something.
ddaalluu2 5y ago
- LandR 5y ago
  > Well to be fair, if you release something to the public you do have a certain responsibility. At least to provide a running configuration without the documentation being behind a payment. If it's free, you have zero responsibility. People can choose to use it or not, I don't think you even have a responsibility to keep it running. If you have a hundred thousand users and you decide tomorrow to just yank it from existence, that's absolutely fine too. It's free, no one forces you to use, don't expect anything. The maintainer might get bored with it, delete it, accidentally break it, or change it just for shits and giggles to fuck with people. It's fine. It's free.
- kortilla 5y ago
  Entitlement to the extreme. Nobody owes anybody anything by marking something as open source. Take some responsibility.
- icambron 5y ago
  This is very silly and I urge you to rethink this position. The software is free, it contains a very explicit warranty disclaimer, and the implicit social contract is that nobody owes anyone anything. There is no fraud here. If you download the code I posted to my GitHub account and try to do something with it, and it doesn’t work or you don’t understand it or I didn’t bother writing docs, that is in fact very much on you. Perhaps my software project has lots of docs and I’m super helpful to users, and it is therefore more likely to be popular, or perhaps it does not have those properties and will stay obscure, but either way it is your job to decide what free software to use, not mine to make it up to your standards. I have never seen paywalled OSS docs and it seems like a silly idea, but that doesn’t make it fraudulent or even bad. It just makes it perhaps inadvisable to use. Which again is on you.
jdrc 5y ago
Let's agree that it's a global tendency of humans to take advantage of other humans who have shown that they are willing to accept it.

aetherson 5y ago

You get both the demanding users and the giving users, but the point is, the demanding users don't actually cost your open source repo anything. When it's a website, every user is money out of your pocket.

rapind 5y ago
Demanding users of OSS at a minimum will cost you time. At worst they can also cost you reputation. At best they can help you improve your project. I think in most cases the entitlement many (most?) users have makes it a net negative these days. At least for popular projects. I think the easiest solution is to charge for support. No issue reports or PRs unless you’re also a paying user.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > I think the easiest solution is to charge for support. No issue reports or PRs unless you’re also a paying user. Agree 100%. Your time and effort isn't free. Users who want some of it should have to provide value in exchange.
- MaxBarraclough 5y ago
  > No issue reports or PRs unless you’re also a paying user. You'd turn down quality bug-reports and code-contributions in the name of blocking spam? I doubt I'm the only one who would take strong objection to the idea of pay me so that you can work on my project. Open Source software development can be made to scale to the level of the Linux kernel. I don't buy the idea that its principles need to be thrown out in the name of anti-spam practicalities.
  - rapind 5y ago
    > You'd turn down quality bug-reports and code-contributions in the name of blocking spam? Absolutely I’d “risk” it. Even a negligible amount like $10, would reduce the noise significantly. I’d also pay that in a heartbeat as a user. > I don't buy the idea that its principles need to be thrown out in the name of anti-spam practicalities. What “principles” are you referring to?

chefandy 5y ago

I don’t think anyone implied FOSS projects lack obligation— just that it’s more manageable. Uptime (and the related system management,) large monthly withdrawals from your personal checking account, and soliciting donations to recoup some are are constant, recurring obligations more urgent than anything I’ve experienced maintaining repos. Most people shrug and move on if their issues and feature requests get ignored. Even an ignored CVE isn’t going to stop you from paying your rent. Doing your best to get the word out to users (even breaking your code to do so if you’ve got an oft-included but rarely considered library or something), as far as I’m concerned, satisfies your ethical obligations.