3 ms·

> 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 sha

> 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.

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.