6 ms·

Open source is a gift, and the implicit social contract with gifts is that you don't give them out expecting something in return and you don't complain about th

Open source is a gift, and the implicit social contract with gifts is that you don't give them out expecting something in return and you don't complain about them if you are on the receiving end. If you cannot bare the GitHub issue page or pull requests, either disable them or ignore them. If you cannot bare collaboration in general, host your code as a .zip folder. If you have so much other stuff going on in your life, consider keeping the code to yourself altogether. If you feel frustrated by the fact that you could have made money from your code but didn't because you open sourced it, consider creating commercial projects.

nextaccountic 2y ago
Or just publish the code on Github (or whatever platform you like) and then not interact with it. Whoever wants to make improvements can just fork your code, it's literally a button away.
- GuB-42 2y ago
  This, GitHub is convenient to store code online publicly, so is GitLab and others. You can just use the git repository and ignore everything else. For that, GitHub is free, and being git, you are not tied to a particular service, a "git clone" is all you need to migrate, you can even use several services at the same time, or self-host, online and offline.
hackit2 2y ago
When is a gift not a gift? If your not willing to have the other person shame you for your gift then you shouldn't be giving gifts. Gifts are given because you enjoy the act of giving not how the gift is perceived by another person, if that rubs you the wrong way you shouldn't be giving, it's as simple as that.
- netdevnet 2y ago
  > If your not willing to have the other person shame you for your gift then you shouldn't be giving gifts. Not sure where you were raised but in the western world, shaming the gift giver is extremely rude and will definitely cost you your social reputation. The gift giver is considered to be right in being upset at being shamed
- jakewins 2y ago
  > If your not willing to have the other person shame you for your gift then you shouldn't be giving gifts That is antithetical to how I was raised to react to gifts; you never shame someone that gives you a gift you didn’t like unless it’s something completely egregious.
  - hackit2 2y ago
    When you give a gift, you give a gift unconditionally, it is no longer a gift when there is a underlying expectation on the receiver. It is also a issue about perspective, just because you may consider something to be a "gift" it could be perceived as something else. For example, it could be considered as a form of manipulation by a third party, or a unwanted expectation to owe another person. It can be corrupting.
    - alias_neo 2y ago
      I don't think the gift analogy really works here. When you "give" open-source software, by placing it online, it's more analogous to placing a piece of furniture on your door-step with a sign that says "help yourself". If you come along and take it, you've laid the expectation on yourself. Should you knock on my door and say, "I want this piece of furniture you're giving away, but I want you to deliver it and set it up in my home, since I have no means", I might decide to do so, but that's entirely out of the goodness of my heart, or I might tell you to fuck off, and that's entirely reasonable too. If you decide to come along and use my open-source library (for example), you did your due-dil and set the expectation on yourself if it appears unsustainable and you decide to take it anyway.
      - hackit2 2y ago
        I think if you look at my gift analogy it maps perfectly to your analogy. I wouldn't be surprised if I gifted code then someone contacted me and wanted to sue me or charge me for using it. That is the nature of a gift, you have no control over other people, if you have a problem with that don't give a gift, it's as simple as that.
- continuational 2y ago
  Do you really feel justified in shaming someone who gives you a gift?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- beej71 2y ago
  Flaming bags of dog poo are also delivered while enjoying the act of giving. Anticipating the recipient's positive response is part what makes something a gift. But you're right in a practical sense in that if you're not willing to take some punches for the work you did and gave away for free, you probably shouldn't do that on the internet.
  - hackit2 2y ago
    It applies to life in general not just to the internet.
KeplerBoy 2y ago
> If you have so much other stuff going on in your life, consider keeping the code to yourself altogether. Hard disagree. If you experience no downside by publishing, publish by all means. As you've said we owe nobody support or interaction, so don't let anyone guilt you into thinking an unsupported, abandoned project is somehow worse than no project.
Pikamander2 2y ago
> either disable them Please don't ever disable the Issues page. Even if you have no intention of monitoring it, the Issues page provides a central place for the software's users to post bugs, discuss workarounds and alternatives, and coordinate forking the software if the original developer has stopped maintaining it.
- GuB-42 2y ago
  And what if you don't want that "central place"? If you just want a place to publish your code, you can use GitHub like any git repository, in a decentralized fashion. If you do that, you are not dependent on GitHub, it is just another clone. But as soon as you start using the features of GitHub that are not git, you become dependent on the platform. AFAIK, you can't easily push and pull bug reports and discussions. If you want to start a community elsewhere, like a competing platform, or maybe a traditional mailing list, and there is already something happening on GitHub, you are creating a split. You may also not trust GitHub and want to be able to leave at any time. Again, no problem with git, it is just a matter of changing your remote, but everything that is not in the git repository may be lost.
  - netdevnet 2y ago
    Make a private repo. Making it public, with a readme and ready to be consumed (via npm or the like) implies that you are sharing this with the public. You shouldn't prevent discussion in those cases imo especially if it doesn't require any effort from you to make and keep the issues page available
alxlaz 2y ago
The implicit social contract with gifts goes both ways. You got it as-is, don't expect a commercial relation. If you run into trouble with your gift, and you need it fixed by a particular deadline, either fix it or pay someone to fix it. If you find documentation lacking, write it. If you don't like the release process, write your own. If you want support for hardware I don't have, either find someone who has it or give me the hardware. To date, I've seen two product managers from remarkably large companies ask for status updates on a feature because they have other internal features that need it. You don't get to ask for status updates on gifts. You want something tracked on a neat timeline? Great, put it on your team's Jira and get it done.
Klonoar 2y ago
I’ve started evaluating whether code I want to release even needs to be packaged. In cases where it doesn’t, I just wrote them up as blog posts for people to find. I don’t even bother with significant walkthroughs, I trust people can reason their way through it. I used to do gists, but over time I’ve noticed those don’t get indexed nearly as well in Google & co. Plus there’s something nice about the old school blog feeling. All this to say there’s sometimes middle grounds on how to release code that you want out there.

nextaccountic 2y ago

Or just publish the code on Github (or whatever platform you like) and then not interact with it. Whoever wants to make improvements can just fork your code, it's literally a button away.

GuB-42 2y ago
This, GitHub is convenient to store code online publicly, so is GitLab and others. You can just use the git repository and ignore everything else. For that, GitHub is free, and being git, you are not tied to a particular service, a "git clone" is all you need to migrate, you can even use several services at the same time, or self-host, online and offline.

hackit2 2y ago

When is a gift not a gift? If your not willing to have the other person shame you for your gift then you shouldn't be giving gifts. Gifts are given because you enjoy the act of giving not how the gift is perceived by another person, if that rubs you the wrong way you shouldn't be giving, it's as simple as that.

netdevnet 2y ago
> If your not willing to have the other person shame you for your gift then you shouldn't be giving gifts. Not sure where you were raised but in the western world, shaming the gift giver is extremely rude and will definitely cost you your social reputation. The gift giver is considered to be right in being upset at being shamed
jakewins 2y ago
> If your not willing to have the other person shame you for your gift then you shouldn't be giving gifts That is antithetical to how I was raised to react to gifts; you never shame someone that gives you a gift you didn’t like unless it’s something completely egregious.
- hackit2 2y ago
  When you give a gift, you give a gift unconditionally, it is no longer a gift when there is a underlying expectation on the receiver. It is also a issue about perspective, just because you may consider something to be a "gift" it could be perceived as something else. For example, it could be considered as a form of manipulation by a third party, or a unwanted expectation to owe another person. It can be corrupting.
  - alias_neo 2y ago
    I don't think the gift analogy really works here. When you "give" open-source software, by placing it online, it's more analogous to placing a piece of furniture on your door-step with a sign that says "help yourself". If you come along and take it, you've laid the expectation on yourself. Should you knock on my door and say, "I want this piece of furniture you're giving away, but I want you to deliver it and set it up in my home, since I have no means", I might decide to do so, but that's entirely out of the goodness of my heart, or I might tell you to fuck off, and that's entirely reasonable too. If you decide to come along and use my open-source library (for example), you did your due-dil and set the expectation on yourself if it appears unsustainable and you decide to take it anyway.
    - hackit2 2y ago
      I think if you look at my gift analogy it maps perfectly to your analogy. I wouldn't be surprised if I gifted code then someone contacted me and wanted to sue me or charge me for using it. That is the nature of a gift, you have no control over other people, if you have a problem with that don't give a gift, it's as simple as that.
continuational 2y ago
Do you really feel justified in shaming someone who gives you a gift?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
beej71 2y ago
Flaming bags of dog poo are also delivered while enjoying the act of giving. Anticipating the recipient's positive response is part what makes something a gift. But you're right in a practical sense in that if you're not willing to take some punches for the work you did and gave away for free, you probably shouldn't do that on the internet.
- hackit2 2y ago
  It applies to life in general not just to the internet.

KeplerBoy 2y ago

> If you have so much other stuff going on in your life, consider keeping the code to yourself altogether. Hard disagree. If you experience no downside by publishing, publish by all means. As you've said we owe nobody support or interaction, so don't let anyone guilt you into thinking an unsupported, abandoned project is somehow worse than no project.

Pikamander2 2y ago

> either disable them Please don't ever disable the Issues page. Even if you have no intention of monitoring it, the Issues page provides a central place for the software's users to post bugs, discuss workarounds and alternatives, and coordinate forking the software if the original developer has stopped maintaining it.

GuB-42 2y ago
And what if you don't want that "central place"? If you just want a place to publish your code, you can use GitHub like any git repository, in a decentralized fashion. If you do that, you are not dependent on GitHub, it is just another clone. But as soon as you start using the features of GitHub that are not git, you become dependent on the platform. AFAIK, you can't easily push and pull bug reports and discussions. If you want to start a community elsewhere, like a competing platform, or maybe a traditional mailing list, and there is already something happening on GitHub, you are creating a split. You may also not trust GitHub and want to be able to leave at any time. Again, no problem with git, it is just a matter of changing your remote, but everything that is not in the git repository may be lost.
- netdevnet 2y ago
  Make a private repo. Making it public, with a readme and ready to be consumed (via npm or the like) implies that you are sharing this with the public. You shouldn't prevent discussion in those cases imo especially if it doesn't require any effort from you to make and keep the issues page available

alxlaz 2y ago

The implicit social contract with gifts goes both ways. You got it as-is, don't expect a commercial relation. If you run into trouble with your gift, and you need it fixed by a particular deadline, either fix it or pay someone to fix it. If you find documentation lacking, write it. If you don't like the release process, write your own. If you want support for hardware I don't have, either find someone who has it or give me the hardware. To date, I've seen two product managers from remarkably large companies ask for status updates on a feature because they have other internal features that need it. You don't get to ask for status updates on gifts. You want something tracked on a neat timeline? Great, put it on your team's Jira and get it done.

Klonoar 2y ago

I’ve started evaluating whether code I want to release even needs to be packaged. In cases where it doesn’t, I just wrote them up as blog posts for people to find. I don’t even bother with significant walkthroughs, I trust people can reason their way through it. I used to do gists, but over time I’ve noticed those don’t get indexed nearly as well in Google & co. Plus there’s something nice about the old school blog feeling. All this to say there’s sometimes middle grounds on how to release code that you want out there.