4 ms·

>it is not okay to consider that this labor fell from the sky and is a gift, and that the people/person behind are just doing it for their own enjoyments Yes i

>it is not okay to consider that this labor fell from the sky and is a gift, and that the people/person behind are just doing it for their own enjoyments Yes it absolutely is. That is the exact social contract people 100% willingly enter by releasing something as Free and Open Source. They do give it as a gift, in exchange for maybe the tiny bit of niche recognition that comes with it, and often times out of simple generosity. Is that really so incredible?

Aurornis 9mo ago
Agreed. Supporting open source maintainers is a great idea in general, but shaming people for using something according to the exact license terms it was released with is getting old.
nonethewiser 9mo ago
It's crazy to expect someone to pay for something that you're giving them for free.
- patmorgan23 9mo ago
  Correct, but if there's a bug/enhancement/support they want, it's perfectly reasonable to ask for compensation for it.
securesaml 9mo ago
The problem is more so maintenance. The expectation of FOSS is that the users and maintainer work together to resolve bug fixes/features/security issues. However many companies will dump these issues to the maintainer and take it for granted when they are resolved. It's not a sustainable model, and will lead to burnout/unmaintained libraries. If the companies don't have the engineering resources/specialization to complete bug fixes/features, they should sponsor the maintainers.
- strongpigeon 9mo ago
  It’s OK to say “No” or “Pay me and I’ll do it right now” to companies doing this.
  - Dilettante_ 9mo ago
    (And on the flipside, nothing is owed for a bugfix the maintainer made out of their own free will. Again, a gift.)
    - securesaml 9mo ago
      The problem is lots of open source is unmaintained/insecure, and there aren't any security engineers on those open source libraries. For the library to be secure, there needs to be funding, not by magic and expecting maintainers will do stuff on there free will.
      - overfeed 9mo ago
        The person needing a feature can do implement it themselves or pay for it. They may even share it, in the spirit of open source, but they probably don't have to (depending on license conditions).
      - Dilettante_ 9mo ago
        Is your perspective here "these things need to be useful/stable/secure, how do we make them/create incentive for them to be what we need them to be"? Because my view is more like "open source is a sprawling wild garden and occasionally a tree bears fruit, and anyone gets to have some for as long as it does." The assumed base state we're looking to augment via open source software being: "Fully working software"(Augmented: free) vs "No software" (Augmented: yes software)? Like, what you seem to want is business, plain and simple. Pay a guy, have your specs filled, get guarantees. That would be expecting open source to fill a role it just isn't made for.
  - securesaml 9mo ago
    Correct, maintainers can say that and get shamed. And it leads to unmaintained libraries, since companies don't want to pay. At some point, is open sourcing your work a liability?
- eddd-ddde 9mo ago
  A company finding a bug and opening an issue on an open source project _is_ contributing. What happens next is completely irrelevant. The maintainer can 100% decide to just ignore the issue or close it. Opening issues doesn't create unmaintained software. In fact it helps.
- lifetimerubyist 9mo ago
  No the expectation of FOSS is that code is provided AS-IS with NO WARRANTY because that’s what it says in the license.
  - jandrewrogers 9mo ago
    People's expectations are not constrained by the license. They are free to exercise a sense of entitlement beyond the terms of the contract and empirically they often do. The license does not prohibit them from engaging with the authors or maintainers for any reason whatsoever, including requesting free labor. You could perhaps add a clause in the license that restricts this behavior but then it would no longer be FOSS.
    - majorchord 9mo ago
      Perhaps they simply meant the legal expectations are constrained by the license.
    - lifetimerubyist 9mo ago
      They are free to have a sense of entitlement or to try and engage with the project maintainers/owners but there is nothing that obligates them to reciprocate anything at all.
- dwaite 9mo ago
  > The expectation of FOSS is that the users and maintainer work together to resolve bug fixes/features/security issues. This depends a lot on the users, and then somewhat on the maintainers. I have seen a lot of end-user facing software where people do not understand that features and fixes do not magically materialize - that there is a person on the other end likely working on this in their free time, with their own prioritization on how they will use that limited time.
- ssdspoimdsjvv 9mo ago
  You, as a maintainer, are free to ignore any such expectations and do what you want. There are no obligations. You only risk disappointing people (or corporations), and losing Github stars. If that leads to unmaintained libraries, that probably means the open-source model doesn't work for this project. And that's fine.
- vlad-roundabout 9mo ago
  The software can't have a price, but the service of maintaining it and adding someone's desired features can.
- nextlevelwizard 9mo ago
  What are these many companies? And how are these mysterious companies forcing you to work on their issues? If you have companies name and shame them, but often these are just hypotheticals or few entities.
tehjoker 9mo ago
A natural solution for this kind of problem would be either a private or public grants program. Critical infrastructure built by random uncompensated people... ideally there would be some process for evaluating what is critical and compensating that person for continued maintenance.

Aurornis 9mo ago

Agreed. Supporting open source maintainers is a great idea in general, but shaming people for using something according to the exact license terms it was released with is getting old.

nonethewiser 9mo ago

It's crazy to expect someone to pay for something that you're giving them for free.

patmorgan23 9mo ago
Correct, but if there's a bug/enhancement/support they want, it's perfectly reasonable to ask for compensation for it.

securesaml 9mo ago

The problem is more so maintenance. The expectation of FOSS is that the users and maintainer work together to resolve bug fixes/features/security issues. However many companies will dump these issues to the maintainer and take it for granted when they are resolved. It's not a sustainable model, and will lead to burnout/unmaintained libraries. If the companies don't have the engineering resources/specialization to complete bug fixes/features, they should sponsor the maintainers.

strongpigeon 9mo ago
It’s OK to say “No” or “Pay me and I’ll do it right now” to companies doing this.
- Dilettante_ 9mo ago
  (And on the flipside, nothing is owed for a bugfix the maintainer made out of their own free will. Again, a gift.)
  - securesaml 9mo ago
    The problem is lots of open source is unmaintained/insecure, and there aren't any security engineers on those open source libraries. For the library to be secure, there needs to be funding, not by magic and expecting maintainers will do stuff on there free will.
    - overfeed 9mo ago
      The person needing a feature can do implement it themselves or pay for it. They may even share it, in the spirit of open source, but they probably don't have to (depending on license conditions).
    - Dilettante_ 9mo ago
      Is your perspective here "these things need to be useful/stable/secure, how do we make them/create incentive for them to be what we need them to be"? Because my view is more like "open source is a sprawling wild garden and occasionally a tree bears fruit, and anyone gets to have some for as long as it does." The assumed base state we're looking to augment via open source software being: "Fully working software"(Augmented: free) vs "No software" (Augmented: yes software)? Like, what you seem to want is business, plain and simple. Pay a guy, have your specs filled, get guarantees. That would be expecting open source to fill a role it just isn't made for.
- securesaml 9mo ago
  Correct, maintainers can say that and get shamed. And it leads to unmaintained libraries, since companies don't want to pay. At some point, is open sourcing your work a liability?
eddd-ddde 9mo ago
A company finding a bug and opening an issue on an open source project _is_ contributing. What happens next is completely irrelevant. The maintainer can 100% decide to just ignore the issue or close it. Opening issues doesn't create unmaintained software. In fact it helps.
lifetimerubyist 9mo ago
No the expectation of FOSS is that code is provided AS-IS with NO WARRANTY because that’s what it says in the license.
- jandrewrogers 9mo ago
  People's expectations are not constrained by the license. They are free to exercise a sense of entitlement beyond the terms of the contract and empirically they often do. The license does not prohibit them from engaging with the authors or maintainers for any reason whatsoever, including requesting free labor. You could perhaps add a clause in the license that restricts this behavior but then it would no longer be FOSS.
  - majorchord 9mo ago
    Perhaps they simply meant the legal expectations are constrained by the license.
  - lifetimerubyist 9mo ago
    They are free to have a sense of entitlement or to try and engage with the project maintainers/owners but there is nothing that obligates them to reciprocate anything at all.
dwaite 9mo ago
> The expectation of FOSS is that the users and maintainer work together to resolve bug fixes/features/security issues. This depends a lot on the users, and then somewhat on the maintainers. I have seen a lot of end-user facing software where people do not understand that features and fixes do not magically materialize - that there is a person on the other end likely working on this in their free time, with their own prioritization on how they will use that limited time.
ssdspoimdsjvv 9mo ago
You, as a maintainer, are free to ignore any such expectations and do what you want. There are no obligations. You only risk disappointing people (or corporations), and losing Github stars. If that leads to unmaintained libraries, that probably means the open-source model doesn't work for this project. And that's fine.
vlad-roundabout 9mo ago
The software can't have a price, but the service of maintaining it and adding someone's desired features can.
nextlevelwizard 9mo ago
What are these many companies? And how are these mysterious companies forcing you to work on their issues? If you have companies name and shame them, but often these are just hypotheticals or few entities.

tehjoker 9mo ago

A natural solution for this kind of problem would be either a private or public grants program. Critical infrastructure built by random uncompensated people... ideally there would be some process for evaluating what is critical and compensating that person for continued maintenance.