6 ms·

> there are multiple PRs to address that, but the maintainers give no good reason for not accepting it. Congrats on discovering the difference between “““Open

by Lammy 8mo ago

> there are multiple PRs to address that, but the maintainers give no good reason for not accepting it. Congrats on discovering the difference between “““Open Source””” (pro-corporate; a way to socially engineer people to do work for you for free from which you can turn around and profit) and Free Software! “THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.”

Lammy 8mo ago
Too late to edit, but here's the inarguable truth straight from the mouth of the Open Source Initiative, that the term was the direct product of Netscape's desire to get people to work for them for free: https://opensource.org/history https://opensource.org/history “The ‘open source’ label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto, California, shortly after the announcement of the release of the Netscape source code. […] The conferees believed the pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape to release their code illustrated a valuable way to engage with potential software users and developers, and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community. The conferees also believed that it would be useful to have a single label that identified this approach and distinguished it from the philosophically- and politically-focused label ‘free software.’”
- mnau 8mo ago
  Open source is not open contribution. There are many examples of open source, but closed contribution, e.g. SQLite. What you are listing is a business strategy of a company (free labor and advertising). Desires of a company are very different from an unpaid volunteer. In projects that leave PRs unanswered, the maintainer is already unpaid labor, but contributor want him to work on the contribution. That might not align with what maintainer wants. Edit: Personally, I find reviewing least pleasant part of dev work. Thanks to LLMs, that now also significantly more of my paid work. My desire to do code reviews in my free time is massively lower. I would rather do it myself.
notepad0x90 8mo ago
You quoted a snipped out of context and argued the wrong thing. They don't need to give a good reason for accepting it, that's not the issue. the issue in this thread is taking away the ability to create PRs to begin with. You're overreaching and saying "not only do we offer no warranty or guarantees for this program, but we will actively prohibit others from linking their fixes to issues to prevent you from making the program usable". You don't owe users anything, but your users don't deserve hostility from you either!
- Lammy 8mo ago
  Wrong; unsolicited PRs from people who want me to maintain their needs for them are what's hostile. Take the project as-is, fork and maintain it yourself, or pay up.
  - notepad0x90 8mo ago
    Why are unsolicited PRs hostile, you have no obligation to even read them? Unless you're saying you're obligated to do something about PRs. If you want to host public projects, you will always have some responsibility to the public. Similar to how hardware makers shouldn't be making hard to repair their hardware.
    - Lammy 8mo ago
      > If you want to host public projects, you will always have some responsibility to the public. I disagree with this completely.
      - notepad0x90 8mo ago
        If you plant a public tree for example, you may not be responsible if the tree produces a poisonous fruit or not, but if someone puts a sign next to the tree telling people "boil before eating,otherwise it's poisonous", that's their right. But if you don't want your tree to look bad and prevent them from doing so, now you're responsible for any poisoning from the tree. You can either be responsible or not responsible, but you can't be __irresponsible__. You can't act in a manner that you know will harm others, when not doing so costs you nothing, not even a perception of obligation. If you have the right to turn off PRs, any company out there also has the right to make thing that are hard to repair. I don't want to say anyone who agrees with you on this thread complaining about Google or some other company shutting down your accounts with no explanation either.

by Lammy 8mo ago

Lammy 8mo ago

Too late to edit, but here's the inarguable truth straight from the mouth of the Open Source Initiative, that the term was the direct product of Netscape's desire to get people to work for them for free: https://opensource.org/history https://opensource.org/history “The ‘open source’ label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto, California, shortly after the announcement of the release of the Netscape source code. […] The conferees believed the pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape to release their code illustrated a valuable way to engage with potential software users and developers, and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community. The conferees also believed that it would be useful to have a single label that identified this approach and distinguished it from the philosophically- and politically-focused label ‘free software.’”

mnau 8mo ago
Open source is not open contribution. There are many examples of open source, but closed contribution, e.g. SQLite. What you are listing is a business strategy of a company (free labor and advertising). Desires of a company are very different from an unpaid volunteer. In projects that leave PRs unanswered, the maintainer is already unpaid labor, but contributor want him to work on the contribution. That might not align with what maintainer wants. Edit: Personally, I find reviewing least pleasant part of dev work. Thanks to LLMs, that now also significantly more of my paid work. My desire to do code reviews in my free time is massively lower. I would rather do it myself.

notepad0x90 8mo ago

You quoted a snipped out of context and argued the wrong thing. They don't need to give a good reason for accepting it, that's not the issue. the issue in this thread is taking away the ability to create PRs to begin with. You're overreaching and saying "not only do we offer no warranty or guarantees for this program, but we will actively prohibit others from linking their fixes to issues to prevent you from making the program usable". You don't owe users anything, but your users don't deserve hostility from you either!

Lammy 8mo ago
Wrong; unsolicited PRs from people who want me to maintain their needs for them are what's hostile. Take the project as-is, fork and maintain it yourself, or pay up.
- notepad0x90 8mo ago
  Why are unsolicited PRs hostile, you have no obligation to even read them? Unless you're saying you're obligated to do something about PRs. If you want to host public projects, you will always have some responsibility to the public. Similar to how hardware makers shouldn't be making hard to repair their hardware.
  - Lammy 8mo ago
    > If you want to host public projects, you will always have some responsibility to the public. I disagree with this completely.
    - notepad0x90 8mo ago
      If you plant a public tree for example, you may not be responsible if the tree produces a poisonous fruit or not, but if someone puts a sign next to the tree telling people "boil before eating,otherwise it's poisonous", that's their right. But if you don't want your tree to look bad and prevent them from doing so, now you're responsible for any poisoning from the tree. You can either be responsible or not responsible, but you can't be __irresponsible__. You can't act in a manner that you know will harm others, when not doing so costs you nothing, not even a perception of obligation. If you have the right to turn off PRs, any company out there also has the right to make thing that are hard to repair. I don't want to say anyone who agrees with you on this thread complaining about Google or some other company shutting down your accounts with no explanation either.