3 ms·

It really isn’t much to ask people not to bullshit in their own README. That’s literally all I’m asking for. If you don’t want to offer software guarantees then

by hnlmorg 7mo ago

It really isn’t much to ask people not to bullshit in their own README. That’s literally all I’m asking for. If you don’t want to offer software guarantees then don’t write your README like you offer it. It’s really that simple. And your comment that I should pay every…single…maintainer of every…single…project on GitHub, just for them to disclose whether or not their project is experimental… well that’s just insane and completely misses the point of open source. If we are talking about businesses relying on open source libraries then that would be a different matter. But not ever fscking thing being built is a VC-backed startup. I say all of this as an open source maintainer. Just be honest in your READMEs. A little honesty in the README costs nothing and we should be expecting more of it. And suggesting we lock that honesty behind a paywall is possibly the worst idea for open source imaginable. That simply isn’t the right way to monetise open source. Edit: just to add, even if we were talking about software quality (which we wasn’t) paying for software doesn’t guarantee to you a better product. I could name a multitude of commercial solutions that I gave up on because the open source alternative was at least equivalent. But often even superior. And that’s before we talk about then enshitification phenomena. Edit 2: sorry for all the edits. I should have just waited until I had proper time to reply calmly rather than commenting while doing chores and stuff around the house. My bad.

jjav 7mo ago
I'm not suggesting honesty should be behind a paywayll. Honesty should be upfront and it already is, in the license. The license (most, anyway) clearly state the software is not necessarily suitable for any purpose and that's all you get. If you require a higher level of confidence than none, then you should be paying for a support contract. All I can say without being repetitive is that if you expect more than nothing when the license specifically says all you can expect is nothing, you might be disappointed more often than not.
- hnlmorg 7mo ago
  This mind set of yours is a relatively recent development. Open source never used to be like that. And in fact, if it did operate the way you claimed, the open source ecosystem would never have grown into even remotely the size it is today. And why you describe absolutely is not how any of more reputable libraries nor maintainers approach open source software. So you might feel like you are legally correct. But you’re still completely missing the point.
  - jjav 7mo ago
    > This mind set of yours is a relatively recent development. I published my first open source (we didn't call it that) program in the 1980s. I didn't know anything about licenses back then (and the open source licenses we use today didn't yet exist), so I just put a header comment on it saying something along the lines of "This code is public domain, feel free to try it but I can't guarantee it'll work for you." (although I can't remember exact wording). This is how it's always been. > But you’re still completely missing the point. I suggest considering the fact that you're disappointed that open source libraries aren't providing the guarantees you feel they owe you (which they don't) is an indicator that perhaps your expectations are not in line with what open source is all about.

by hnlmorg 7mo ago

jjav 7mo ago

I'm not suggesting honesty should be behind a paywayll. Honesty should be upfront and it already is, in the license. The license (most, anyway) clearly state the software is not necessarily suitable for any purpose and that's all you get. If you require a higher level of confidence than none, then you should be paying for a support contract. All I can say without being repetitive is that if you expect more than nothing when the license specifically says all you can expect is nothing, you might be disappointed more often than not.

hnlmorg 7mo ago
This mind set of yours is a relatively recent development. Open source never used to be like that. And in fact, if it did operate the way you claimed, the open source ecosystem would never have grown into even remotely the size it is today. And why you describe absolutely is not how any of more reputable libraries nor maintainers approach open source software. So you might feel like you are legally correct. But you’re still completely missing the point.
- jjav 7mo ago
  > This mind set of yours is a relatively recent development. I published my first open source (we didn't call it that) program in the 1980s. I didn't know anything about licenses back then (and the open source licenses we use today didn't yet exist), so I just put a header comment on it saying something along the lines of "This code is public domain, feel free to try it but I can't guarantee it'll work for you." (although I can't remember exact wording). This is how it's always been. > But you’re still completely missing the point. I suggest considering the fact that you're disappointed that open source libraries aren't providing the guarantees you feel they owe you (which they don't) is an indicator that perhaps your expectations are not in line with what open source is all about.