3 ms·
You plucked that quote from the comment you replied to but carefully didn't include the critical lead in: "If maintainer was actively building community and adv
by saurik 2y ago
You plucked that quote from the comment you replied to but carefully didn't include the critical lead in: "If maintainer was actively building community and advocating use of his project". All the replies are hung up nitpicking some later wording which wasn't the point.
Having the standard website/readme with a bunch of claims about how awesome your software is as a way to entice other developers to get excited by it, start using it, and even (gasp) depend on it absolutely implies something more than the mere terms of the license.
Put elsewise: if you don't want the expectation of feeding people, haven't put any thought into how you will actually make that happen, and are just going to get defensive when people are annoyed at how you don't own a grill, you have no business inviting everyone to a BBQ.
https://imgur.com/a/chris-pratt-barbecue-gDL2O https://imgur.com/a/chris-pratt-barbecue-gDL2O
https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/3v8svx/barbecue_at_chris_pratts/ https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/3v8svx/barbecue_at_c...
- palata 2y ago> but carefully didn't include the critical lead in Because it's irrelevant to my point. My point being that if you don't sign a contract with me where I commit to do something for you, then I don't owe you anything. If you misunderstand open source and have wrong expectations because of it, then you will get frustrated. My point is that it is important for you to understand that open source just means that the author shares something for free, no strings attached. Maybe the maintainer is super responsive today, and that's great. But you have to know that they may stop responding tomorrow. And you should be ready to handle that if you depend on their project for something important.