3 ms·

It's fine not to be a supplier! I'm usually not. But in that case, why publish your code so that people will think you are a supplier? Better to publish it as a

It's fine not to be a supplier! I'm usually not. But in that case, why publish your code so that people will think you are a supplier? Better to publish it as a gist, a notebook, or some other way of sharing example code, not as a package where people who want to reuse code without adopting it will expect to find such things.

di4na 4y ago
But i did write in big, capital letter that i am not a supplier in the licence, in the repo. See the last sentence.
- skybrian 4y ago
  I don't know where you publish your code. You did imply at some point that you're not just talking about yourself, though: > We are volunteers, writing code and putting it online under these Licences. And yes, we put it online for people to use them. But we do not get anything from it. Some people publish their code on npm or as crates or whatever. These packaging systems are designed to allow people to download and use your code without reading it. Worse, they can end up using the code indirectly, without reading it. Do you think they see your repo or the README or the license? So what I'm saying is that if you take no responsibility (which I support), you should stop doing that (if you are), because it confuses your message. Although there's no money involved, these packaging systems encourage consumer-like behavior.
  - ssivark 4y ago
    And handicap all the sensible users who are willing to take responsibility for using those libraries? (in hobby projects, or otherwise) Sounds to me like a perversion of the intent of FOSS infrastructure.
    - skybrian 4y ago
      More users, more problems. People who just use your code without maintaining it don't benefit you. Often, FOSS infrastructure is part of the problem.
TheCleric 4y ago
> why publish your code so that people will think you are a supplier? Because I was taught that sharing is a moral good. Are you suggesting that anyone who shares their source online is obligated to also provide free support to any and all users?
- skybrian 4y ago
  The only obligation I think you have is to avoid misleading people by sending mixed messages. If the code is really provided without support, it's not enough to just say that in the license. You also want to make sure that the way you present your code to strangers online doesn't encourage them to think of it as a supported product. For example, creating a slick website with a marketing message about how great your software is (so try it now) would undermine the message that it's just provided as-is and any bugs it has are yours to fix. Similarly, publishing your code in a store-like repository so people download and use it without reading it, or even knowing that it's a dependency, encourages people to treat it like a hidden part of a product.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    Why is there not explicit payments in the store... Like why not design it so that supplier can set any price for their code and this is automatically deducted from the buyer that is downloader? Or is not actually a store?
    - skybrian 4y ago
      Because it's open source, payments are optional. Yes, including by big companies. Even those who want to "give back" have lots of options, such as "paying it forward" by making something else. There are people who give away software, support it (at least making security patches), and are fine with other people relying on it. If that's you then publishing it as a package makes sense. But a lot of us are not really prepared to do that with the software we write, and we should be wary of the implicit promises we make with how we publish it. Publishing example code or a notebook is safer since no library is going to add a dependency on that code.

di4na 4y ago

But i did write in big, capital letter that i am not a supplier in the licence, in the repo. See the last sentence.

skybrian 4y ago
I don't know where you publish your code. You did imply at some point that you're not just talking about yourself, though: > We are volunteers, writing code and putting it online under these Licences. And yes, we put it online for people to use them. But we do not get anything from it. Some people publish their code on npm or as crates or whatever. These packaging systems are designed to allow people to download and use your code without reading it. Worse, they can end up using the code indirectly, without reading it. Do you think they see your repo or the README or the license? So what I'm saying is that if you take no responsibility (which I support), you should stop doing that (if you are), because it confuses your message. Although there's no money involved, these packaging systems encourage consumer-like behavior.
- ssivark 4y ago
  And handicap all the sensible users who are willing to take responsibility for using those libraries? (in hobby projects, or otherwise) Sounds to me like a perversion of the intent of FOSS infrastructure.
  - skybrian 4y ago
    More users, more problems. People who just use your code without maintaining it don't benefit you. Often, FOSS infrastructure is part of the problem.

TheCleric 4y ago

> why publish your code so that people will think you are a supplier? Because I was taught that sharing is a moral good. Are you suggesting that anyone who shares their source online is obligated to also provide free support to any and all users?

skybrian 4y ago
The only obligation I think you have is to avoid misleading people by sending mixed messages. If the code is really provided without support, it's not enough to just say that in the license. You also want to make sure that the way you present your code to strangers online doesn't encourage them to think of it as a supported product. For example, creating a slick website with a marketing message about how great your software is (so try it now) would undermine the message that it's just provided as-is and any bugs it has are yours to fix. Similarly, publishing your code in a store-like repository so people download and use it without reading it, or even knowing that it's a dependency, encourages people to treat it like a hidden part of a product.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Why is there not explicit payments in the store... Like why not design it so that supplier can set any price for their code and this is automatically deducted from the buyer that is downloader? Or is not actually a store?
  - skybrian 4y ago
    Because it's open source, payments are optional. Yes, including by big companies. Even those who want to "give back" have lots of options, such as "paying it forward" by making something else. There are people who give away software, support it (at least making security patches), and are fine with other people relying on it. If that's you then publishing it as a package makes sense. But a lot of us are not really prepared to do that with the software we write, and we should be wary of the implicit promises we make with how we publish it. Publishing example code or a notebook is safer since no library is going to add a dependency on that code.