6 ms·

As much as I respect Rich Hickey, it's hard to say anything positive about this. It has basically nothing to do with open source. It's entirely specific to how

As much as I respect Rich Hickey, it's hard to say anything positive about this. It has basically nothing to do with open source. It's entirely specific to how he chooses to run his own projects. Open source is not a gift in the sense that you "get what they give you". You are entitled to the source code. You are entitled to modify the code. You are entitled to distribute your modifications. Are you entitled to be part of the development process and to state your opinions about how things are going? Yes...if those are the rules of the project. The thing is, that has nothing to do with open source, it's always project-specific, so the full post largely doesn't make any sense as a comment on open source.

ungamedplayer 4y ago
>Are you entitled to be part of the development process and to state your opinions about how things are going? Yes...if those are the rules of the project. Open source isn't a a code of conduct. It is a licensed though. The subject and title is not about random projects, it's about clojure and open source.
- bachmeier 4y ago
  > it's about clojure and open source No, it's about Clojure. It's not in any way about open source. Software can be open source no matter how the person writing it runs their projects.
  - Heliosmaster 4y ago
    I would phrase it that open source is just about the license of code, not about anything else, and definitely not about how changes are applied to such code. Usually, it just practically means that you are allowed to make changes and redistribute them, but without giving any guarantees on how these changes are going to be made available to others.
grzm 4y ago
> ” The thing is, that has nothing to do with open source, it's always project-specific, so the full post largely doesn't make any sense as a comment on open source.” I think that’s exactly the point he’s making. To phrase it another way, open source is orthogonal to the relationship between the stewards and the community.
pure_simplicity 4y ago
He is clearly responding to people who have a misunderstanding of what open source is, so you cannot blame him for correcting the wrong understanding as if he is the one who defined open source to include these additional expectations that go beyond the license. He is merely pointing out how the way he runs his project is also in accordance with the license.
wildmanx 4y ago
> The thing is, that has nothing to do with open source, it's always project-specific, so the full post largely doesn't make any sense as a comment on open source. That's how I read this article. He argues that it's a misconception that "open source" implies the entitlements that he rejects. There may be projects which offer such entitlements (though it's unlikely phrased like that), but other projects don't, and nobody should assume they are entitled to anything just because of the "open source" label -- beyond the rights guaranteed by the chosen license. He argues for freedom. The programmers freedom to ignore anything beyond the license, and the users freedom to go choose a different project if they don't like the choices of some project. That's also what you are saying.
- bachmeier 4y ago
  I don't agree. Two sentences in particular drive me crazy: > As a user of something open source you are not thereby entitled to anything at all. You are not entitled to contribute. The first sentence is wrong according to any standard definition of open source. The second is specific to the project. It may or may not be true. He's making strong statements about how we should view open source rather than his project: > The time to re-examine preconceptions about open source is right now. Morale erosion amongst creators is a real thing. That's a statement about open source, and it's not filler that he threw in without much thought. It's at the core of his argument.
  - monsieurbanana 4y ago
    I think you have a wrong definition of entitled. You're never entitled to make contributions to any open source project. Any such project may or may not give you that right, but it's not something you're entitled, it's explicitly given to you.
    - bachmeier 4y ago
      If so, then Merriam-Webster is also confused: > having a right to certain benefits or privileges The right to contribute is a property of the project, not a property of open source, which has nothing to say on how projects are run. And for the record, I don't agree with his project management style.
zozbot234 4y ago
> Are you entitled to be part of the development process and to state your opinions about how things are going? Yes...if those are the rules of the project. You can always fork the project if you disagree with how it's being maintained (or not maintained, as is the case often enough). Right to Fork is integral to FLOSS.
- casion 4y ago
  Integral to FLOSS, but not integral to open source.
  - miloignis 4y ago
    Integral to Open Source too, I believe. Anything else would just be Source Available or something. If I can't modify and share, it's not very open.
  - imaltont 4y ago
    OSS part of FLOSS stands for open source software. It is an integral part of free software as defined by the FSF, and to open source as defined by the OSI. Any other usages of the term(s) is either ill-informed or malicious in an attempt to make it more ambiguous.
dahart 4y ago
Maybe it would be better to understand the context of events that lead to the letter than argue with generic platitudinal responses about what open source is that are totally debatable, e.g., you are only entitled to whatever source code they give you and nothing more, and you are only entitled to distribute your modifications if the open source license allows it, redistribution is not automatically a feature of all open source. It’s certainly true that there are users out there who expect unreasonable things to happen just because they say so, right? Have you been on the receiving end of user demands? I certainly have. Your reaction might be different if you knew that part of the story. This is why your reaction sounds like it might land under Hickey’s qualification “If you don't recognize yourself in the message above, it's not for/about you!” He’s speaking to the unreasonable people who have demanded things of him and his project, not the reasonable ones who already understand what open source is or is not, right? *edit: there is some context here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31958698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31958698
mkoubaa 4y ago
The best explanation I've heard is that OSS is free as in puppy, not free as in beer
nemetroid 4y ago
Rich is making the same argument as you are: a project being open source does not determine whether users are entitled to be part of the development process for that project.

ungamedplayer 4y ago

>Are you entitled to be part of the development process and to state your opinions about how things are going? Yes...if those are the rules of the project. Open source isn't a a code of conduct. It is a licensed though. The subject and title is not about random projects, it's about clojure and open source.

bachmeier 4y ago
> it's about clojure and open source No, it's about Clojure. It's not in any way about open source. Software can be open source no matter how the person writing it runs their projects.
- Heliosmaster 4y ago
  I would phrase it that open source is just about the license of code, not about anything else, and definitely not about how changes are applied to such code. Usually, it just practically means that you are allowed to make changes and redistribute them, but without giving any guarantees on how these changes are going to be made available to others.

grzm 4y ago

> ” The thing is, that has nothing to do with open source, it's always project-specific, so the full post largely doesn't make any sense as a comment on open source.” I think that’s exactly the point he’s making. To phrase it another way, open source is orthogonal to the relationship between the stewards and the community.

pure_simplicity 4y ago

He is clearly responding to people who have a misunderstanding of what open source is, so you cannot blame him for correcting the wrong understanding as if he is the one who defined open source to include these additional expectations that go beyond the license. He is merely pointing out how the way he runs his project is also in accordance with the license.

wildmanx 4y ago

> The thing is, that has nothing to do with open source, it's always project-specific, so the full post largely doesn't make any sense as a comment on open source. That's how I read this article. He argues that it's a misconception that "open source" implies the entitlements that he rejects. There may be projects which offer such entitlements (though it's unlikely phrased like that), but other projects don't, and nobody should assume they are entitled to anything just because of the "open source" label -- beyond the rights guaranteed by the chosen license. He argues for freedom. The programmers freedom to ignore anything beyond the license, and the users freedom to go choose a different project if they don't like the choices of some project. That's also what you are saying.

bachmeier 4y ago
I don't agree. Two sentences in particular drive me crazy: > As a user of something open source you are not thereby entitled to anything at all. You are not entitled to contribute. The first sentence is wrong according to any standard definition of open source. The second is specific to the project. It may or may not be true. He's making strong statements about how we should view open source rather than his project: > The time to re-examine preconceptions about open source is right now. Morale erosion amongst creators is a real thing. That's a statement about open source, and it's not filler that he threw in without much thought. It's at the core of his argument.
- monsieurbanana 4y ago
  I think you have a wrong definition of entitled. You're never entitled to make contributions to any open source project. Any such project may or may not give you that right, but it's not something you're entitled, it's explicitly given to you.
  - bachmeier 4y ago
    If so, then Merriam-Webster is also confused: > having a right to certain benefits or privileges The right to contribute is a property of the project, not a property of open source, which has nothing to say on how projects are run. And for the record, I don't agree with his project management style.

zozbot234 4y ago

> Are you entitled to be part of the development process and to state your opinions about how things are going? Yes...if those are the rules of the project. You can always fork the project if you disagree with how it's being maintained (or not maintained, as is the case often enough). Right to Fork is integral to FLOSS.

casion 4y ago
Integral to FLOSS, but not integral to open source.
- miloignis 4y ago
  Integral to Open Source too, I believe. Anything else would just be Source Available or something. If I can't modify and share, it's not very open.
- imaltont 4y ago
  OSS part of FLOSS stands for open source software. It is an integral part of free software as defined by the FSF, and to open source as defined by the OSI. Any other usages of the term(s) is either ill-informed or malicious in an attempt to make it more ambiguous.

dahart 4y ago

Maybe it would be better to understand the context of events that lead to the letter than argue with generic platitudinal responses about what open source is that are totally debatable, e.g., you are only entitled to whatever source code they give you and nothing more, and you are only entitled to distribute your modifications if the open source license allows it, redistribution is not automatically a feature of all open source. It’s certainly true that there are users out there who expect unreasonable things to happen just because they say so, right? Have you been on the receiving end of user demands? I certainly have. Your reaction might be different if you knew that part of the story. This is why your reaction sounds like it might land under Hickey’s qualification “If you don't recognize yourself in the message above, it's not for/about you!” He’s speaking to the unreasonable people who have demanded things of him and his project, not the reasonable ones who already understand what open source is or is not, right? *edit: there is some context here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31958698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31958698

mkoubaa 4y ago

The best explanation I've heard is that OSS is free as in puppy, not free as in beer

nemetroid 4y ago

Rich is making the same argument as you are: a project being open source does not determine whether users are entitled to be part of the development process for that project.