7 ms·

> When you always published and built Docker images for the public you are creating an expectation That expectation does not entitle anybody to anything though

> When you always published and built Docker images for the public you are creating an expectation That expectation does not entitle anybody to anything though. > people will rely on that and will chose your software based on that expectation That is their decision. Without any contract or promise, there is no obligation to anybody. > You suddenly deciding that you won't be offering updated Docker images […] is approaching malicious-level actions. I really don’t get this entitlement. “You are still doing unpaid work I benefit from, but you used to do more, therefore you are malicious.” is something I really cannot get behind.

jphoward 1y ago
Have you not seen some of the replies at the link? For example: "You are joking ?! The commit about source only is 4 days old (9e49d5e) We are currently paying for a license while using the open source version, you already removed the oidc code from UI console and now docker images. We are not happy by this lock-in. We will discuss this internally, but you may loose a paying customer with this behavior."
- jamespo 1y ago
  Why would a paying customer use the open source version? Deployment in non-prod?
  - fires10 1y ago
    I do this frequently. To prevent vendor lock in and allow us to easily pivot if pricing gets out line. We pay to support the project and get technical support when needed. Considering how little we use technical support. It should be a good deal for the company.
  - johannes1234321 1y ago
    For one: Using open source version often is a lot simpler. Commercial versions are hidden behind authentication and other weird systems to download. User experience can be a lot better. Then there are ideological reasons: Purposly trying to make the open source version sustainable. And then reduced lockin etc. by not using Enterprise only features by accident/convenience, which leaves the door open to leave the contract.
  - anonzzzies 1y ago
    Because I want to give a project money but also want to make 5000% sure the entire thing is in github, working, the latest, compiling and that we can do all of that all of the time? What is strange about that?
  - wlonkly 1y ago
    In my experience, you start using the open source version, realize you could benefit from paid support, so you "buy a license" and get your support -- but then you never have a big enough reason to do the lift to the commercial version.
DannyBee 1y ago
"That expectation does not entitle anybody to anything though." This is true legally, but not otherwise (socially, practically) "That is their decision. Without any contract or promise, there is no obligation to anybody." Again, true legally, but IMHO a really silly position to take overall. Imagine I provide free electricity to everyone in my town. I encourage everyone to use it. I do it all for free. I'm very careful to ensure the legal framework means i have no obligation, and everyone knows i have no obligations to them legally. They all take me up on it. All the other providers wither and die as a result. 15 years later, i decide to shut it all down on a whim because i want to move on to other things. The lights go out for the town everywhere. Saying "i have no legal obligations" is true, but expecting people to not be pissed off, complain, and expect me to not do this is at best, naive. Calling them entitled is even funnier. It's sort of irrelevant if they are entitled or not, after i put them in this position. Legal obligation is not the only form of obligation, and not even the interesting ones most of the time. More importantly - society has never survived on legal obligation alone. I do not think you would enjoy living in a world where legal obligation is the only thing that mattered.
- mlrtime 1y ago
  Bad analogy, MinIO isn't a basic commodity required for life. Maybe a car analogy (because they hardly work). It's like lending your car to someone everyday then stopping, then the person complains that they have no way to get around. But there is walking, biking, busses or buying your own car.
  - ishouldbework 1y ago
    Electricity is not a basic commodity required for life. It is convenient for sure.
  - s1mplicissimus 1y ago
    I don't see how "basic commodity required for life" is a necessary criteria for any ethical standards to apply at all. This is about trust, community and how to be a good project steward.
fukka42 1y ago
[dead]
imiric 1y ago
> Without any contract or promise, there is no obligation to anybody. When a restaurant which you've been going to for years one day decides to serve you your favorite meal with a bit of poop on the side, do you not have the right to be upset about it? They're not under any obligation to serve you meals you're happy with. There was no contract or promise. The fact you're paying for their service doesn't buy you these rights either. Those are just the terms of service both parties have agreed to. Similarly, open source software is much more than a license. There is a basic social contract of not being an asshole to users of your product, which is an unwritten rule not just in software and industry in general, but in society as a whole. The free software movement is an extension of this mindset, and focuses on building software for the benefit of everyone, not just those who happen to pay for it, or those who meet your specific criteria. Claiming you support this philosophy, while acting against it, is hypocritical, and abusive towards people who do believe in it. And your point is that that people who complain about this are entitled? Give me a break. If you want to place restrictions on how your software is used and who gets to enjoy it, that's fine, but make those terms explicit by choosing the appropriate license and business model from the start. Stop abusing OSS as a marketing tactic.[1] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45666757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45666757
- Ekaros 1y ago
  Why isn't there similar expectations for users of Open source? That is be ready to take over yourself if maintainers do not want to do something anymore? Do not ask or demand anything. Do not expect anything but the code. To understand that you can not expect or be entitled to anything. And celebrate what you get just now. With this the solution becomes obvious. You select piece of technology to build on you are fully and ready to take over it for purposes you want to use for it. The code is shared and you should not expect anything more.
  - Eisenstein 1y ago
    I think you are digging in a little too hard here. If someone offers a capability that you don't have, and you build that into something you use, then saying that they should be ready for it to go away at any time and be happy to have had it, seems a little too much. If there had never been an offer, they would not have built around it, and would have found another solution and, even if harder or more inconvenient, learned how to use that and built around that. Sure, no one is obligated to continue to provide them with the product, but saying that they are being unreasonable for expecting a little bit of warning time before having support pulled is a bit unrealistic. I know we have done the metaphors to death already, but let's try another one: imagine if someone gave you a ride to work every day for years and one morning they didn't show up and you couldn't get in touch with them. You should have had a backup plan, and you shouldn't have depended on them, but it will take you a while to find a car and rearrange your schedule and learn how to drive or whatever you have to do, and all they had to do was notify you a month or two earlier that they wouldn't be able to do it anymore.
anothernewdude 1y ago
You seem more entitled to your opinion than others. > That is their decision. Without any contract or promise, there is no obligation to anybody. Not everything is legally enforced. Open source is a social phenomenon. Why are you so surprised that these social rules are being enforced socially? There are obligations... it's how society functions. > I really don’t get this entitlement. “You are still doing unpaid work I benefit from, but you used to do more, therefore you are malicious.” is something I really cannot get behind. I really don't get this entitlement. You expect that nobody should follow any social contracts and I'm sure are always surprised when people call you out for being asocial.
walt_grata 1y ago
You're correct and the project isn't entitled to any good will or usage from the community either. So they get what they get, just like the community. Or you know, everyone can just give a shit about each other even if it's a bit more effort.
skeeter2020 1y ago
I think if you analyzed your day to day life you'd be surprised with how many reliances you have on norms and social contracts. I personally don't want to live in a world that depends on an explicit legal basis for every single thing, and I doubt you want to either. The GP didn't say it entitled them to anything, but that it created a sense of entitlement. You are correct there's no contractual obligation to do so, but it was likely a part of the decision to go with their solution, i.e. "they make it easy to deploy!". It is a very logical conclusion to say "they just made it HARDER THAN BEFORE to deploy". Promises are not always explicit written permission; that's why I got in trouble for re-broadcasting major-league baseball with only implicit verbal permission (thanks, Simpsons!)
walkabout 1y ago
Calling out shitty behavior doesn’t mean you felt “entitled” to anything. Not all shitty behavior is governed by contracts and licenses. You can be an asshole without violating the terms of a license.
ryandrake 1y ago
“I’m not legally required to be nice” has become a classic and very common HN/Reddit argument. While true, it’s kind of beside the point. People often go beyond what they are legally obligated to do, and other people often expect others to go beyond what we are legally obligated to do. This is about nice vs. not-nice instead of legal vs. illegal.
tmoertel 1y ago
> > When you always published and built Docker images for the public you are creating an expectation > That expectation does not entitle anybody to anything though. Note that implied contracts do exist, and sometimes expectations based on prior conduct do suffice to form an enforcable contract. In this case, I don't know whether you can reasonably make that argument, but that's never stopped enterprising lawyers before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract
alwyn 1y ago
> That is their decision. Without any contract or promise, there is no obligation to anybody. Even as a paying customer on a $1m/yr contract, still using the open source distribution because AIStor is not something we are keen on, we were not informed whatsoever. They were well aware we were still using those container images, and we were by far the only paying customers doing the same. This is malicious.

jphoward 1y ago

Have you not seen some of the replies at the link? For example: "You are joking ?! The commit about source only is 4 days old (9e49d5e) We are currently paying for a license while using the open source version, you already removed the oidc code from UI console and now docker images. We are not happy by this lock-in. We will discuss this internally, but you may loose a paying customer with this behavior."

jamespo 1y ago
Why would a paying customer use the open source version? Deployment in non-prod?
- fires10 1y ago
  I do this frequently. To prevent vendor lock in and allow us to easily pivot if pricing gets out line. We pay to support the project and get technical support when needed. Considering how little we use technical support. It should be a good deal for the company.
- johannes1234321 1y ago
  For one: Using open source version often is a lot simpler. Commercial versions are hidden behind authentication and other weird systems to download. User experience can be a lot better. Then there are ideological reasons: Purposly trying to make the open source version sustainable. And then reduced lockin etc. by not using Enterprise only features by accident/convenience, which leaves the door open to leave the contract.
- anonzzzies 1y ago
  Because I want to give a project money but also want to make 5000% sure the entire thing is in github, working, the latest, compiling and that we can do all of that all of the time? What is strange about that?
- wlonkly 1y ago
  In my experience, you start using the open source version, realize you could benefit from paid support, so you "buy a license" and get your support -- but then you never have a big enough reason to do the lift to the commercial version.

DannyBee 1y ago

"That expectation does not entitle anybody to anything though." This is true legally, but not otherwise (socially, practically) "That is their decision. Without any contract or promise, there is no obligation to anybody." Again, true legally, but IMHO a really silly position to take overall. Imagine I provide free electricity to everyone in my town. I encourage everyone to use it. I do it all for free. I'm very careful to ensure the legal framework means i have no obligation, and everyone knows i have no obligations to them legally. They all take me up on it. All the other providers wither and die as a result. 15 years later, i decide to shut it all down on a whim because i want to move on to other things. The lights go out for the town everywhere. Saying "i have no legal obligations" is true, but expecting people to not be pissed off, complain, and expect me to not do this is at best, naive. Calling them entitled is even funnier. It's sort of irrelevant if they are entitled or not, after i put them in this position. Legal obligation is not the only form of obligation, and not even the interesting ones most of the time. More importantly - society has never survived on legal obligation alone. I do not think you would enjoy living in a world where legal obligation is the only thing that mattered.

mlrtime 1y ago
Bad analogy, MinIO isn't a basic commodity required for life. Maybe a car analogy (because they hardly work). It's like lending your car to someone everyday then stopping, then the person complains that they have no way to get around. But there is walking, biking, busses or buying your own car.
- ishouldbework 1y ago
  Electricity is not a basic commodity required for life. It is convenient for sure.
- s1mplicissimus 1y ago
  I don't see how "basic commodity required for life" is a necessary criteria for any ethical standards to apply at all. This is about trust, community and how to be a good project steward.

fukka42 1y ago

[dead]

imiric 1y ago

> Without any contract or promise, there is no obligation to anybody. When a restaurant which you've been going to for years one day decides to serve you your favorite meal with a bit of poop on the side, do you not have the right to be upset about it? They're not under any obligation to serve you meals you're happy with. There was no contract or promise. The fact you're paying for their service doesn't buy you these rights either. Those are just the terms of service both parties have agreed to. Similarly, open source software is much more than a license. There is a basic social contract of not being an asshole to users of your product, which is an unwritten rule not just in software and industry in general, but in society as a whole. The free software movement is an extension of this mindset, and focuses on building software for the benefit of everyone, not just those who happen to pay for it, or those who meet your specific criteria. Claiming you support this philosophy, while acting against it, is hypocritical, and abusive towards people who do believe in it. And your point is that that people who complain about this are entitled? Give me a break. If you want to place restrictions on how your software is used and who gets to enjoy it, that's fine, but make those terms explicit by choosing the appropriate license and business model from the start. Stop abusing OSS as a marketing tactic.[1] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45666757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45666757

Ekaros 1y ago
Why isn't there similar expectations for users of Open source? That is be ready to take over yourself if maintainers do not want to do something anymore? Do not ask or demand anything. Do not expect anything but the code. To understand that you can not expect or be entitled to anything. And celebrate what you get just now. With this the solution becomes obvious. You select piece of technology to build on you are fully and ready to take over it for purposes you want to use for it. The code is shared and you should not expect anything more.
- Eisenstein 1y ago
  I think you are digging in a little too hard here. If someone offers a capability that you don't have, and you build that into something you use, then saying that they should be ready for it to go away at any time and be happy to have had it, seems a little too much. If there had never been an offer, they would not have built around it, and would have found another solution and, even if harder or more inconvenient, learned how to use that and built around that. Sure, no one is obligated to continue to provide them with the product, but saying that they are being unreasonable for expecting a little bit of warning time before having support pulled is a bit unrealistic. I know we have done the metaphors to death already, but let's try another one: imagine if someone gave you a ride to work every day for years and one morning they didn't show up and you couldn't get in touch with them. You should have had a backup plan, and you shouldn't have depended on them, but it will take you a while to find a car and rearrange your schedule and learn how to drive or whatever you have to do, and all they had to do was notify you a month or two earlier that they wouldn't be able to do it anymore.

anothernewdude 1y ago

You seem more entitled to your opinion than others. > That is their decision. Without any contract or promise, there is no obligation to anybody. Not everything is legally enforced. Open source is a social phenomenon. Why are you so surprised that these social rules are being enforced socially? There are obligations... it's how society functions. > I really don’t get this entitlement. “You are still doing unpaid work I benefit from, but you used to do more, therefore you are malicious.” is something I really cannot get behind. I really don't get this entitlement. You expect that nobody should follow any social contracts and I'm sure are always surprised when people call you out for being asocial.

walt_grata 1y ago

You're correct and the project isn't entitled to any good will or usage from the community either. So they get what they get, just like the community. Or you know, everyone can just give a shit about each other even if it's a bit more effort.

skeeter2020 1y ago

I think if you analyzed your day to day life you'd be surprised with how many reliances you have on norms and social contracts. I personally don't want to live in a world that depends on an explicit legal basis for every single thing, and I doubt you want to either. The GP didn't say it entitled them to anything, but that it created a sense of entitlement. You are correct there's no contractual obligation to do so, but it was likely a part of the decision to go with their solution, i.e. "they make it easy to deploy!". It is a very logical conclusion to say "they just made it HARDER THAN BEFORE to deploy". Promises are not always explicit written permission; that's why I got in trouble for re-broadcasting major-league baseball with only implicit verbal permission (thanks, Simpsons!)

walkabout 1y ago

Calling out shitty behavior doesn’t mean you felt “entitled” to anything. Not all shitty behavior is governed by contracts and licenses. You can be an asshole without violating the terms of a license.

ryandrake 1y ago

“I’m not legally required to be nice” has become a classic and very common HN/Reddit argument. While true, it’s kind of beside the point. People often go beyond what they are legally obligated to do, and other people often expect others to go beyond what we are legally obligated to do. This is about nice vs. not-nice instead of legal vs. illegal.

tmoertel 1y ago

> > When you always published and built Docker images for the public you are creating an expectation > That expectation does not entitle anybody to anything though. Note that implied contracts do exist, and sometimes expectations based on prior conduct do suffice to form an enforcable contract. In this case, I don't know whether you can reasonably make that argument, but that's never stopped enterprising lawyers before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract

alwyn 1y ago

> That is their decision. Without any contract or promise, there is no obligation to anybody. Even as a paying customer on a $1m/yr contract, still using the open source distribution because AIStor is not something we are keen on, we were not informed whatsoever. They were well aware we were still using those container images, and we were by far the only paying customers doing the same. This is malicious.