3 ms·

> 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 dish

by 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!
- imiric 1y ago
  > Nope, at least following a common definition of "rug pull" outside of FOSS. The current context is within FOSS, however. And it has a widely known definition[1]. > 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. So, let me get this straight. You're saying that because users didn't pay for the software, they're not allowed to be surprised and angry when they're forced to either continue using unmaintained versions, take over maintenance themselves or wait until someone from the community does, or pay up? And you're saying that paying for the software buys you these privileges? So, essentially, if the author of cURL decided tomorrow that it's no longer "practical" for him to support ancient and obscure protocols like Gopher and Telnet for free, and he decided to put them up behind a paywall, that the people depending on these features don't have any right to be upset about it? And if they are, they're being entitled? Or, from a social perspective, if the people making meals at a community kitchen decide that it's no longer "practical" for them to supply eating utensils for free, and start selling them at $10 a pop, that the people relying on those meals are being entitled if they're upset about this change, because they're not paying customers? Don't you realize how hostile this is? Forget about open source. This has nothing to do with licensing. The libre software philosophy is orthogonal to monetization practices, and every author can choose how they wish to make development sustainable, if at all. As I've said before[2], I'm in favor of F/LOSS projects having commercial tiers or subscriptions, as long as it's done fairly. What I am arguing for is having basic decency to treat all users of your software with respect. The moment you decide that users not paying for your work are not worth listening to, that they're entitled, etc., and that your attention and respect can only be bought, you've corrupted the entire ideal of why we build freedom-respecting software in the first place. The sad irony is that I'm 100% sure that most people arguing against this, including Datastar authors, rely on tools like `curl`, `grep`, and other libre software whose authors never have and never will pull these shenanigans. So they're quite happy to "leech off" other people's work, but not happy to let others do the same off theirs. This double standard is what's ruining open source, not entitled users. I won't bother responding to the other comments, as they boil down to this same point. And I'm really repeating myself here, so feel free to talk amongst yourselves. [1]: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=open%20source%20rug%20pull&sort=byPopularity&type=all https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45536000#45540307 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45536000#45540307

by imiric 1y ago

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!

imiric 1y ago
> Nope, at least following a common definition of "rug pull" outside of FOSS. The current context is within FOSS, however. And it has a widely known definition[1]. > 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. So, let me get this straight. You're saying that because users didn't pay for the software, they're not allowed to be surprised and angry when they're forced to either continue using unmaintained versions, take over maintenance themselves or wait until someone from the community does, or pay up? And you're saying that paying for the software buys you these privileges? So, essentially, if the author of cURL decided tomorrow that it's no longer "practical" for him to support ancient and obscure protocols like Gopher and Telnet for free, and he decided to put them up behind a paywall, that the people depending on these features don't have any right to be upset about it? And if they are, they're being entitled? Or, from a social perspective, if the people making meals at a community kitchen decide that it's no longer "practical" for them to supply eating utensils for free, and start selling them at $10 a pop, that the people relying on those meals are being entitled if they're upset about this change, because they're not paying customers? Don't you realize how hostile this is? Forget about open source. This has nothing to do with licensing. The libre software philosophy is orthogonal to monetization practices, and every author can choose how they wish to make development sustainable, if at all. As I've said before[2], I'm in favor of F/LOSS projects having commercial tiers or subscriptions, as long as it's done fairly. What I am arguing for is having basic decency to treat all users of your software with respect. The moment you decide that users not paying for your work are not worth listening to, that they're entitled, etc., and that your attention and respect can only be bought, you've corrupted the entire ideal of why we build freedom-respecting software in the first place. The sad irony is that I'm 100% sure that most people arguing against this, including Datastar authors, rely on tools like `curl`, `grep`, and other libre software whose authors never have and never will pull these shenanigans. So they're quite happy to "leech off" other people's work, but not happy to let others do the same off theirs. This double standard is what's ruining open source, not entitled users. I won't bother responding to the other comments, as they boil down to this same point. And I'm really repeating myself here, so feel free to talk amongst yourselves. [1]: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=open%20source%20rug%20pull&sort=byPopularity&type=all https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45536000#45540307 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45536000#45540307