3 ms·

Ya OP is shadow boxing. There is absolutely no need for any of these things. Tons of open source exists as only source code and a license, nothing else. No doc

Ya OP is shadow boxing. There is absolutely no need for any of these things. Tons of open source exists as only source code and a license, nothing else. No docs, no issue tracker, nothing. People who need it use it, learn from it, remix it, whatever, but there need not be any engagement at all from the given repo's maintainer.

venturecruelty 11mo ago
Seriously. If I throw something up somewhere, you get a tarball, a README, and no way to get in touch with me. If the code helps you, fantastic! If it doesn't, then I hope you at least got something out of the experience. But "as-is" means what it says on the tin. I'm not sure why people are so hellbent on treating every message from every stranger as important.
- imiric 11mo ago
  /sigh Because open source is not just about the code and the license. It is first and foremost about a community of people who want to make software better for everyone, not just for themselves or a select few. The code and license are ancillary to this goal. I won't get into this discussion again. I'll just say that if you think otherwise, whatever good you think you're putting out into the world, is not much better than keeping the software proprietary.
  - nickelpro 11mo ago
    You have this entirely backwards. Open source is, definitionally, the code and a license. It is "first and foremost" those things. The community of people cannot exist without the code and the license. The code and the license can and often does exist without dedicated communities. Everything else in open source is a cultural projection entirely ancillary to the code and the license. > I'll just say that if you think otherwise, whatever good you think you're putting out into the world, is not much better than keeping the software proprietary. I have never seen someone so entirely miss the point of open source. This is not a house party, this is not a community support network. There are genuine disagreements about open source philosophy, if it should be more focused on user freedoms or developer convenience, but they are all incompatible with the idea that open-source licensed code in and of itself "is not much better than keeping the software proprietary". Stallman did not invent the GPL because he wanted an issue tracker and complete documentation from HP. He invented the GPL because he needed to fix his printer drivers. A ton of very important open source code was thrust into the world, created immense value, but was never further supported or developed by its original developers. Off the top of my head: git, Doom, Bitcoin, and basically everything Fabrice Bellard has ever done.
    - crashabr 11mo ago
      Code existed before FOSS. Code that people collaborated on existed before FOSS. Code given away for free existed before FOSS. FOSS code, by itself, is not anything special. Licences also existed before FOSS, but open sources licences enabling the kind of freedoms that they allow did not exist. And as it happens, a license is not a technical artefact but a social contract. Stallman is activist, not simply a neutral combination of a technician and a lawyer. The social contract and political vision are consequently not ancillary, but core to FOSS. Code is the medium, but the license is the innovation. Without that social contract, 'open' code is just abandonware. The community doesn't need to be a 'house party,' but the license guarantees the right for a community to form when the original author walks away.
      - nickelpro 11mo ago
        > The community doesn't need to be a 'house party,' but the license guarantees the right for a community to form when the original author walks away. Which is why the license is the only thing that matters. Without the license you don't have the community. It will happen with some code, it won't happen to other code. Without the license, or without the code, it never happens. The only thing you need to do as an open source software developer is release your code under an open source license. You don't need to respond to or even maintain an issue tracker, you don't need to accept MRs into your upstream, you don't need to care about anyone else using your code. Open source places no other obligations on a developer other than the license. To say otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand what open source is.
    - hombre_fatal 11mo ago
      Maybe you are lasering in on a term we use to describe software, but they are talking more broadly about maintaining open source (lower case, btw) collaborative software. - https://lkml.org/ https://lkml.org/ - https://www.postgresql.org/list/ https://www.postgresql.org/list/ Though I have to be very charitable to grant your point. Even your examples support their point of "people who want to make software better for everyone, not just for themselves or a select few". Stallman just cared about code, like fixing his printer, and not a whole social movement?

venturecruelty 11mo ago

Seriously. If I throw something up somewhere, you get a tarball, a README, and no way to get in touch with me. If the code helps you, fantastic! If it doesn't, then I hope you at least got something out of the experience. But "as-is" means what it says on the tin. I'm not sure why people are so hellbent on treating every message from every stranger as important.

imiric 11mo ago
/sigh Because open source is not just about the code and the license. It is first and foremost about a community of people who want to make software better for everyone, not just for themselves or a select few. The code and license are ancillary to this goal. I won't get into this discussion again. I'll just say that if you think otherwise, whatever good you think you're putting out into the world, is not much better than keeping the software proprietary.
- nickelpro 11mo ago
  You have this entirely backwards. Open source is, definitionally, the code and a license. It is "first and foremost" those things. The community of people cannot exist without the code and the license. The code and the license can and often does exist without dedicated communities. Everything else in open source is a cultural projection entirely ancillary to the code and the license. > I'll just say that if you think otherwise, whatever good you think you're putting out into the world, is not much better than keeping the software proprietary. I have never seen someone so entirely miss the point of open source. This is not a house party, this is not a community support network. There are genuine disagreements about open source philosophy, if it should be more focused on user freedoms or developer convenience, but they are all incompatible with the idea that open-source licensed code in and of itself "is not much better than keeping the software proprietary". Stallman did not invent the GPL because he wanted an issue tracker and complete documentation from HP. He invented the GPL because he needed to fix his printer drivers. A ton of very important open source code was thrust into the world, created immense value, but was never further supported or developed by its original developers. Off the top of my head: git, Doom, Bitcoin, and basically everything Fabrice Bellard has ever done.
  - crashabr 11mo ago
    Code existed before FOSS. Code that people collaborated on existed before FOSS. Code given away for free existed before FOSS. FOSS code, by itself, is not anything special. Licences also existed before FOSS, but open sources licences enabling the kind of freedoms that they allow did not exist. And as it happens, a license is not a technical artefact but a social contract. Stallman is activist, not simply a neutral combination of a technician and a lawyer. The social contract and political vision are consequently not ancillary, but core to FOSS. Code is the medium, but the license is the innovation. Without that social contract, 'open' code is just abandonware. The community doesn't need to be a 'house party,' but the license guarantees the right for a community to form when the original author walks away.
    - nickelpro 11mo ago
      > The community doesn't need to be a 'house party,' but the license guarantees the right for a community to form when the original author walks away. Which is why the license is the only thing that matters. Without the license you don't have the community. It will happen with some code, it won't happen to other code. Without the license, or without the code, it never happens. The only thing you need to do as an open source software developer is release your code under an open source license. You don't need to respond to or even maintain an issue tracker, you don't need to accept MRs into your upstream, you don't need to care about anyone else using your code. Open source places no other obligations on a developer other than the license. To say otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand what open source is.
  - hombre_fatal 11mo ago
    Maybe you are lasering in on a term we use to describe software, but they are talking more broadly about maintaining open source (lower case, btw) collaborative software. - https://lkml.org/ https://lkml.org/ - https://www.postgresql.org/list/ https://www.postgresql.org/list/ Though I have to be very charitable to grant your point. Even your examples support their point of "people who want to make software better for everyone, not just for themselves or a select few". Stallman just cared about code, like fixing his printer, and not a whole social movement?