4 ms·

There seems to be some implicit connection between "work on OSS" and "maintain software" which isn't a required part anywhere. The only thing required for you

by diggan 2y ago

There seems to be some implicit connection between "work on OSS" and "maintain software" which isn't a required part anywhere. The only thing required for you to make something FOSS is to make the code public with a FOSS-compatible license. Your responsibility as the author ends there, unless you take it further yourself. You don't owe anyone bugfixes or implementing new features. If they want those, they can implement them yourself.

ghaff 2y ago
It's probably a bit more complicated than that. I don't think it's really morally wrong to just walk away. No different than if you got hit by a bus. On the other hand, you maybe did create something that people now depend on and walking away is probably causing a lot of anxious moments, possible security breaches, and downtime. Not sure of the right answer. You did something for free. But shutting everything down one day can cause harm.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- diggan 2y ago
  > that people now depend on and walking away is probably causing a lot of anxious moments, possible security breaches, and downtime. This is the mistake of the people who depend on something out of their control, not the person who made some code public, with the promise that there is no warranty, the software is "as-is" and more, which is fairly common in FOSS licenses. The right answer is for people to start understanding the license of the things they use and depend on, and if "no warranties what so ever" isn't good enough for them, it's up to them to find a project using a license they do agree with.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    I depend on a lot of things outside my control. Including commercial software and hardware that a vendor may discontinue support for at any time.
    - diggan 2y ago
      You have some protections with those though (usually). If you pay for software and you are not getting what you pay for, you can sue them (or whatever system you have in your country). In the context of FOSS, it's almost always given away "as-is" without any sort of warranties or guarantees. If people end up shooting themselves in the foot even with those warnings, it's hard to feel sad for them.
      - ghaff 2y ago
        As a practical matter, getting remedies from a commercial entity is often difficult and expensive--even for a company and certainly for an individual. Yes, those remedies are pretty much non-existent for an open source project but you seem to be making a case that no one should ever use unsupported open source for anything important given how risky it is. There have certainly been companies that would be happy to take that side. I don't personally but you should go in with eyes wide open.
        diggan 2y ago
        > getting remedies from a commercial entity is often difficult and expensive--even for a company and certainly for an individual Depends on the country. The countries I've lived in (Spain & Sweden) both have "Small claims court" which you (as a individual) can go through for relatively speedy (and free) resolutions to minor things, and avoids the traditional (slow) court procedures. This might be EU wide, not sure. > you seem to be making a case that no one should ever use unsupported open source for anything important No, I'm trying to make the case that people and businesses need to be more aware of what the license of the software they're using, is under. If the software license says "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND" but you need some sort of warranty, then either find an entity willing to provide that for this specific piece of software, chose another project, or fork it and provide your own warranty yourself.
        ghaff 2y ago
        If you've had a major outage or security breach, small claims court will probably not help you much against someone who may not even be in your country or be incorporated. >but you need some sort of warranty, then either find an entity willing to provide that for this specific piece of software, chose another project, or fork it and provide your own warranty yourself. Totally agree with this though. As someone who worked for a commercial open source vendor for a number of years, if you're dependent on Linux, Kubernetes, etc. for your business you should have a commercial subscription. >or fork it and provide your own warranty yourself. Realizing you're now on the hook to do your own development/support ad infinitum which is usually a bad idea.
- feedforward 2y ago
  > possible security breaches I really could care less about some corporation's security. If some company being cheap enough to use my software without compensation or testing has it open their systems to people without proper corporate authorization, I see that as a plus. I release software as is, and if they want to try to get blood from a stone and sue me any how, so be it.
- BeetleB 2y ago
  > and walking away is probably causing a lot of anxious moments, possible security breaches, and downtime. Security breaches and downtime are the responsibility of people using the SW - not of the developers. I rely on a lot of open source libraries for my job. It's 100% my responsibility to pick libraries that I think are well maintained, and find alternatives when there are important bugs that aren't being fixed (that I myself cannot fix).
- seba_dos1 2y ago
  > But shutting everything down one day can cause harm. So what? There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Spreading yourself thin because of some imagined responsibility you're not compensated for causes even more harm. The whole point of FLOSS is to provide everyone enough freedom to let them care about the stuff they use themselves.

by diggan 2y ago

ghaff 2y ago

It's probably a bit more complicated than that. I don't think it's really morally wrong to just walk away. No different than if you got hit by a bus. On the other hand, you maybe did create something that people now depend on and walking away is probably causing a lot of anxious moments, possible security breaches, and downtime. Not sure of the right answer. You did something for free. But shutting everything down one day can cause harm.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
diggan 2y ago
> that people now depend on and walking away is probably causing a lot of anxious moments, possible security breaches, and downtime. This is the mistake of the people who depend on something out of their control, not the person who made some code public, with the promise that there is no warranty, the software is "as-is" and more, which is fairly common in FOSS licenses. The right answer is for people to start understanding the license of the things they use and depend on, and if "no warranties what so ever" isn't good enough for them, it's up to them to find a project using a license they do agree with.
- ghaff 2y ago
  I depend on a lot of things outside my control. Including commercial software and hardware that a vendor may discontinue support for at any time.
  - diggan 2y ago
    You have some protections with those though (usually). If you pay for software and you are not getting what you pay for, you can sue them (or whatever system you have in your country). In the context of FOSS, it's almost always given away "as-is" without any sort of warranties or guarantees. If people end up shooting themselves in the foot even with those warnings, it's hard to feel sad for them.
    - ghaff 2y ago
      As a practical matter, getting remedies from a commercial entity is often difficult and expensive--even for a company and certainly for an individual. Yes, those remedies are pretty much non-existent for an open source project but you seem to be making a case that no one should ever use unsupported open source for anything important given how risky it is. There have certainly been companies that would be happy to take that side. I don't personally but you should go in with eyes wide open.
      - diggan 2y ago
        > getting remedies from a commercial entity is often difficult and expensive--even for a company and certainly for an individual Depends on the country. The countries I've lived in (Spain & Sweden) both have "Small claims court" which you (as a individual) can go through for relatively speedy (and free) resolutions to minor things, and avoids the traditional (slow) court procedures. This might be EU wide, not sure. > you seem to be making a case that no one should ever use unsupported open source for anything important No, I'm trying to make the case that people and businesses need to be more aware of what the license of the software they're using, is under. If the software license says "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND" but you need some sort of warranty, then either find an entity willing to provide that for this specific piece of software, chose another project, or fork it and provide your own warranty yourself.
        ghaff 2y ago
        If you've had a major outage or security breach, small claims court will probably not help you much against someone who may not even be in your country or be incorporated. >but you need some sort of warranty, then either find an entity willing to provide that for this specific piece of software, chose another project, or fork it and provide your own warranty yourself. Totally agree with this though. As someone who worked for a commercial open source vendor for a number of years, if you're dependent on Linux, Kubernetes, etc. for your business you should have a commercial subscription. >or fork it and provide your own warranty yourself. Realizing you're now on the hook to do your own development/support ad infinitum which is usually a bad idea.
feedforward 2y ago
> possible security breaches I really could care less about some corporation's security. If some company being cheap enough to use my software without compensation or testing has it open their systems to people without proper corporate authorization, I see that as a plus. I release software as is, and if they want to try to get blood from a stone and sue me any how, so be it.
BeetleB 2y ago
> and walking away is probably causing a lot of anxious moments, possible security breaches, and downtime. Security breaches and downtime are the responsibility of people using the SW - not of the developers. I rely on a lot of open source libraries for my job. It's 100% my responsibility to pick libraries that I think are well maintained, and find alternatives when there are important bugs that aren't being fixed (that I myself cannot fix).
seba_dos1 2y ago
> But shutting everything down one day can cause harm. So what? There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Spreading yourself thin because of some imagined responsibility you're not compensated for causes even more harm. The whole point of FLOSS is to provide everyone enough freedom to let them care about the stuff they use themselves.