3 ms·

I think that the examples are not something most users fight with maintainers about. - Does open source mean that the maintainers are free to ignore single lin

I think that the examples are not something most users fight with maintainers about. - Does open source mean that the maintainers are free to ignore single line security fixes PR and refuse to handover it to well trusted and willing contributors. - Does open source mean that maintainers could plant crypto miner or malware in the project or sell to someone who might do that? - Does open source mean that companies could change the license and keep the product name same or remove a core functionality and migrate it to paid version? I have seen multiple instances of all of these.

bruce511 2y ago
>>- Does open source mean that the maintainers are free to ignore single line security fixes PR Yes. >> Does open source mean that maintainers could plant crypto miner or malware in the project or sell to someone who might do that? Yes >> Does open source mean that companies could change the license and keep the product name same or remove a core functionality and migrate it to paid version? Yes None of the things you mentioned are restricted (or required) by the license. You may not agree with these points, or even consider them ethical, but OSS licenses allow for any of the above.
- YetAnotherNick 2y ago
  I know license allows it in the same way it allows users to harass burned out maintainers. Both are bad and we should have some ethical guidelines. A popular open source has lot of community contributions like blog post, answers in stack overflow, issue reporting, PRs etc. And if the maintainer changes the behaviour abruptly with no way for community to fix it, even if they are ready to pay for the development cost like terraform seems like abusing the open source ethos for their advantage.
  - bruce511 2y ago
    OSS is a license. Ethics are not legal, so don't form part of a license. You are of course free to determine your own ethical standard and the use, or don't use, companies that apply that standard. >> abusing the open source You say "abusing" - they would say "using".
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  Tiny caveat: With a viral license and the absence of a CLA or such, a company might not be able to meaningfully change the license. (AIUI; IANAL)
  - bruce511 2y ago
    Yes, if the copyright is held by multiple contributors then they would all need to agree before changing the license.

bruce511 2y ago

>>- Does open source mean that the maintainers are free to ignore single line security fixes PR Yes. >> Does open source mean that maintainers could plant crypto miner or malware in the project or sell to someone who might do that? Yes >> Does open source mean that companies could change the license and keep the product name same or remove a core functionality and migrate it to paid version? Yes None of the things you mentioned are restricted (or required) by the license. You may not agree with these points, or even consider them ethical, but OSS licenses allow for any of the above.

YetAnotherNick 2y ago
I know license allows it in the same way it allows users to harass burned out maintainers. Both are bad and we should have some ethical guidelines. A popular open source has lot of community contributions like blog post, answers in stack overflow, issue reporting, PRs etc. And if the maintainer changes the behaviour abruptly with no way for community to fix it, even if they are ready to pay for the development cost like terraform seems like abusing the open source ethos for their advantage.
- bruce511 2y ago
  OSS is a license. Ethics are not legal, so don't form part of a license. You are of course free to determine your own ethical standard and the use, or don't use, companies that apply that standard. >> abusing the open source You say "abusing" - they would say "using".
yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
Tiny caveat: With a viral license and the absence of a CLA or such, a company might not be able to meaningfully change the license. (AIUI; IANAL)
- bruce511 2y ago
  Yes, if the copyright is held by multiple contributors then they would all need to agree before changing the license.