3 ms·

There was no rug pull! (And the term isn't even being used correctly) They talked in their community decided the set of features caused a support burden and for

There was no rug pull! (And the term isn't even being used correctly) They talked in their community decided the set of features caused a support burden and for versions later on they would put them behind a pro tier to help pay for the extra costs for supporting them. You can keep using your current version! You can even fork at that version. Calling it a rug pull is so entitled.

cameronh90 1y ago
Like I said, I haven't heard of this project until now, so I don't know the wider context, but it may be that some of the people who are reacting negatively to it have been burnt in the past by the many other projects that have gone down this route: project starts as open source, then it goes open-core, then over time more of the dev effort naturally moves into the proprietary part, then sometimes eventually they change the license for the open part too. Forking is often impractical in reality as a solo dev or small team rarely has the resources to keep up with security fixes. I'm entirely happy to pay for things, do pay for many things, as well as donate to the authors of projects I use, and whatever this library is seems reasonably priced. Nevertheless, I'm pretty reluctant now to use open source libraries unless they're backed by a foundation, given how many times I've been badly burnt.
- ianbutler 1y ago
  > Forking is often impractical in reality as a solo dev or small team rarely has the resources to keep up with security fixes. Right, then as you've stated your recourse is not to use the library! That's fine and good and means the ecosystem works as intended.
imiric 1y ago
> There was no rug pull! [...] You can keep using your current version! You can even fork at that version. Calling it a rug pull is so entitled. This is a dishonest perversion of the commonly accepted definition of a "rug pull". I'll copy what I said in a previous thread: When Redis changed licenses to SSPL/RSAL, users were also free to continue using the BSD-licensed version. Was that not a rug pull? Same with MongoDB, Elastic, HashiCorp, etc. These are quintessential examples of the "OSS rug pull". The idea is that users were relying on a functionality to be maintained (the "rug"), and the Datastar developers decided to continue maintaining it behind a paywall (the "pull"). Nobody is claiming that developers physically took the feature away from users, as that would be ridiculous. But users of these features are now forced to either maintain it themselves, wait for someone else from the community to fork and continue maintenance (which has its own set of issues), or pay up. You can argue how it's "only" a few hundred lines of code; criticize "incapable" developers who can't check out a Git commit or do maintenance work they previously didn't have to; that the features don't require maintenance at all; and come up with other defensive arguments. But none of it matters. The size of the "rug" doesn't matter. It's the principle and precedent it sets for any users who were potentially interested in the project. To say nothing about putting essential features like a bundler and debugging tool behind a paywall. These are not "Pro" features.
- pushcx 1y ago
  > The idea is that users were relying on a functionality to be maintained (the "rug"), and the Datastar developers decided to continue maintaining it behind a paywall (the "pull"). Why were the users so entitled to free ongoing maintenance that its end is worth describing using a term from financial fraud?
  - sudodevnull 1y ago
    to be clear, the pro plugin versions ARE NEW IMPLEMENTATIONS. they are not just old code now behind a paywall.
- ianbutler 1y ago
  You don't get to decide what they want to maintain. They could have just deleted the features. This entire saga has made it so clear to me people that can only see what is in it for them versus being able to step into the shoes of a maintainer offering something for free. There is literally no obligation to support you at all. Sucks if it puts you in a bad position that's not on the maintainer, there's no legal or social contract they broke in fact that's entirely in the spirit of what OSS is supposed to be. It's not so a bunch of mediocre free loaders can demand continued access to a library they never contribute to and only consume. The correct way to look at this is you have the privilege of consuming the hard work of another person for free and you should be greatful they put in work to make your life easier in an open way when they did not have to ever and at all and understand when the burden on a small team makes it hard for them to continue to support a feature set. There isn't a sacred duty to people who consume something another group opened because they wanted it to exist. That's what the licenses and all the legal bits say. They do it because they want to and if they stop wanting to you can all get bent. Instead they looked for a sustainable middle ground. At least the controversy is making them even more popular.
- evanelias 1y ago
  > Was that not a rug pull? Nope, at least following a common definition of "rug pull" outside of FOSS. A "rug pull" refers to a specific type of scam where the rug-puller absconds with funds. Wikipedia even redirects "rug pull" to "exit scam": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rug_pull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rug_pull If you're standing on a rug that you didn't pay for in any way, and you're nonetheless surprised and angry when the rug-owner eventually decides it is no longer practical for them to continue maintaining the rug for free, that's just entitlement. Nothing in FOSS licenses says anything about future maintenance expectations, and in fact nearly all of them contain all-caps clauses shouting at you that the software is delivered as-is. > These are not "Pro" features. If you didn't create a piece of software, or pay for it, or directly contribute to it, then you certainly don't get to decide which features are "Pro" features. Instead, you can vote with your feet and your wallet and decide not to use it, that's fine; that's the model with all other products in life. Why should software be any different? Simply using a piece of free software doesn't entitle to you have any control over the future activities of the software's creators!

cameronh90 1y ago

Like I said, I haven't heard of this project until now, so I don't know the wider context, but it may be that some of the people who are reacting negatively to it have been burnt in the past by the many other projects that have gone down this route: project starts as open source, then it goes open-core, then over time more of the dev effort naturally moves into the proprietary part, then sometimes eventually they change the license for the open part too. Forking is often impractical in reality as a solo dev or small team rarely has the resources to keep up with security fixes. I'm entirely happy to pay for things, do pay for many things, as well as donate to the authors of projects I use, and whatever this library is seems reasonably priced. Nevertheless, I'm pretty reluctant now to use open source libraries unless they're backed by a foundation, given how many times I've been badly burnt.

ianbutler 1y ago
> Forking is often impractical in reality as a solo dev or small team rarely has the resources to keep up with security fixes. Right, then as you've stated your recourse is not to use the library! That's fine and good and means the ecosystem works as intended.

imiric 1y ago

> There was no rug pull! [...] You can keep using your current version! You can even fork at that version. Calling it a rug pull is so entitled. This is a dishonest perversion of the commonly accepted definition of a "rug pull". I'll copy what I said in a previous thread: When Redis changed licenses to SSPL/RSAL, users were also free to continue using the BSD-licensed version. Was that not a rug pull? Same with MongoDB, Elastic, HashiCorp, etc. These are quintessential examples of the "OSS rug pull". The idea is that users were relying on a functionality to be maintained (the "rug"), and the Datastar developers decided to continue maintaining it behind a paywall (the "pull"). Nobody is claiming that developers physically took the feature away from users, as that would be ridiculous. But users of these features are now forced to either maintain it themselves, wait for someone else from the community to fork and continue maintenance (which has its own set of issues), or pay up. You can argue how it's "only" a few hundred lines of code; criticize "incapable" developers who can't check out a Git commit or do maintenance work they previously didn't have to; that the features don't require maintenance at all; and come up with other defensive arguments. But none of it matters. The size of the "rug" doesn't matter. It's the principle and precedent it sets for any users who were potentially interested in the project. To say nothing about putting essential features like a bundler and debugging tool behind a paywall. These are not "Pro" features.

pushcx 1y ago
> The idea is that users were relying on a functionality to be maintained (the "rug"), and the Datastar developers decided to continue maintaining it behind a paywall (the "pull"). Why were the users so entitled to free ongoing maintenance that its end is worth describing using a term from financial fraud?
- sudodevnull 1y ago
  to be clear, the pro plugin versions ARE NEW IMPLEMENTATIONS. they are not just old code now behind a paywall.
ianbutler 1y ago
You don't get to decide what they want to maintain. They could have just deleted the features. This entire saga has made it so clear to me people that can only see what is in it for them versus being able to step into the shoes of a maintainer offering something for free. There is literally no obligation to support you at all. Sucks if it puts you in a bad position that's not on the maintainer, there's no legal or social contract they broke in fact that's entirely in the spirit of what OSS is supposed to be. It's not so a bunch of mediocre free loaders can demand continued access to a library they never contribute to and only consume. The correct way to look at this is you have the privilege of consuming the hard work of another person for free and you should be greatful they put in work to make your life easier in an open way when they did not have to ever and at all and understand when the burden on a small team makes it hard for them to continue to support a feature set. There isn't a sacred duty to people who consume something another group opened because they wanted it to exist. That's what the licenses and all the legal bits say. They do it because they want to and if they stop wanting to you can all get bent. Instead they looked for a sustainable middle ground. At least the controversy is making them even more popular.
evanelias 1y ago
> Was that not a rug pull? Nope, at least following a common definition of "rug pull" outside of FOSS. A "rug pull" refers to a specific type of scam where the rug-puller absconds with funds. Wikipedia even redirects "rug pull" to "exit scam": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rug_pull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rug_pull If you're standing on a rug that you didn't pay for in any way, and you're nonetheless surprised and angry when the rug-owner eventually decides it is no longer practical for them to continue maintaining the rug for free, that's just entitlement. Nothing in FOSS licenses says anything about future maintenance expectations, and in fact nearly all of them contain all-caps clauses shouting at you that the software is delivered as-is. > These are not "Pro" features. If you didn't create a piece of software, or pay for it, or directly contribute to it, then you certainly don't get to decide which features are "Pro" features. Instead, you can vote with your feet and your wallet and decide not to use it, that's fine; that's the model with all other products in life. Why should software be any different? Simply using a piece of free software doesn't entitle to you have any control over the future activities of the software's creators!