7 ms·

> As a long-time open-source maintainer, I find all the second-guessing and armchair psychoanalysis here (not just in this comment, all over HN) about Tridge's

by Eufrat 4mo ago

> As a long-time open-source maintainer, I find all the second-guessing and armchair psychoanalysis here (not just in this comment, all over HN) about Tridge's motivations, state of mind, and so on incredibly off-putting. I agree that the entire episode is obscene, but I am also unsure of what to do here either. On some level this is the same problem movie stars run into. I agree that guessing or waxing about the motivations of anyone is a nosy and overall unproductive exercise (yet paparazzi exist because of this very human behavior), but I also think that there is a modest duty owed to users to explain things. > Tridge doesn't owe anyone anything as far as rsync is concerned. Yet he is spending his time maintaining it, only to be attacked for his efforts. I am reminded of this piece: https://mikemcquaid.com/open-source-maintainers-owe-you-nothing/ https://mikemcquaid.com/open-source-maintainers-owe-you-noth... Which, I empathize with, but I fundamentally disagree that maintainers owe users nothing. I will die on that hill. If you are getting to that point where you actively loathe working on the project, I agree you should be able to walk away. However, I strongly believe that when you create something for people to use that there’s an implicit social contract about how to go about doing certain things. I suppose in a very extreme and intentionally histrionic example, having a project carry the MIT license, getting frustrated and then changing the project to delete the entire system is a crime. The average person and the courts don’t care if the license is “as-is”. There is a duty that is understood that you don’t do that and I think we need to make it clear what that duty is for OSS. Ultimately, though, I think this is all symptomatic of the fact that the OSS model has gaps that the increase in security reports whether AI generated or not has exerted more pressure on. I have certainly been on the receiving end of a lot of frivolous security reports that were discarded because it was obvious that it was just someone with a security scanner wandering around the Internet. You still have to review that nonsense and it eats into your time. Doing this on your own time, without pay and having to listen to the peanut gallery is just infuriating. Is any business built on top of rsync going to donate their money in a sustainable manner?

agartner 4mo ago
> the courts don’t care if the license is “as-is”. There isn't any case law to show that. Certainly not in the age of AI. On the criminal side, the CFAA requires "intentionally causes damage" and that's entirely impossible to prove in the age of AI. On the civil side, liability waivers and warranty disclaimers generally cannot shield intentional or willful misconduct or gross negligence.
kelipso 4mo ago
Yeah the maintainers don’t owe users nothing is a disgusting sentiment that doesn’t stand real scrutiny. There is a social contract here. If you want to be respected and get recognized as “tridge” or whatever your name is, you owe the people that recognize you and that wider community in general.
- tptacek 4mo ago
  No there isn't.
  - Eufrat 4mo ago
    I just cannot understand this logic, can you explain why there is no responsibility whatsoever on the part of a maintainer towards the users? Selling a toaster has an implicit warranty of merchantability. Society expects that if you sell me something, it should have certain promises. Yes, there’s no monetary exchange here, the work is given gratis, but there’s still a relationship and an interaction here and I think it is clear some people, like myself, believe that there are implied expectations. Just because it is “free” doesn’t mean it allows one to have a seemingly psychopathic attitude on the matter. It doesn’t absolve people of societal obligations. I read that article by Mike McQuaid and I don’t get the impression that, “Yes, project maintainers should be allowed to run projects as they see fit and they put up with a lot of drive-by insults and hostile users. You don’t understand how hard all of this is and I’m doing it for free.” I get, “I hate my users and you should be grateful that I give you anything.”
    - mikemcquaid 4mo ago
      If I hated my users I wouldn’t work on Homebrew for 17 years. I do hate a small subset of hostile users. The selling metaphor doesn’t work. Homebrew is not sold and its license, effectively a EULA, discloses all warranties because it is not sold and we are not paid a wage to build it. I have also built a bunch of proprietary software for money where my obligations are different. I also enjoy that and my responsibilities differ there. Users should be grateful that they are given anything. We do not get anything from their use. For the vast majority, it is a one way relationship (contributors excluded of course). If they don’t like the choices made by me or the project: they can fork it. They won’t, though, because the closest friend of entitlement is laziness. They can use Nix or MacPorts instead which may be a better fit for them and, if they are not contributing, does not disadvantage Homebrew.
nl 4mo ago
> However, I strongly believe that when you create something for people to use that there’s an implicit social contract about how to go about doing certain things. Wow. The entitlement in this statement is outrageous.
0123456789ABCDE 4mo ago
> I also think that there is a modest duty owed to users to explain things. > I fundamentally disagree that maintainers owe users nothing. > I strongly believe that when you create something for people to use that there’s an implicit social contract about how to go about doing certain things. do you realize how unhinged this all reads like? there is no duty. nothing is owed to no one. there is no implicit anything. this is all happening in your head. you are making up things that don't exist. the social contract is not a real thing either. the only contract you can have with the author of rsync is the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, and then, only when you get a copy of rsync. > getting frustrated and then changing the project to delete the entire system is a crime boop: strawman argument — you have been disqualified > Is any business built on top of rsync going to donate their money in a sustainable manner? does it matter? do you have an invoice for rsync? the author wrote it themselves, he is retired, and sailing. unless google is buying him a new boat, i doubt he gives a crap what anyone has to offer. truly obscene is the fabricated idea that you are owed anything after downloading code from github. > I am also unsure of what to do here either. touch grass?

by Eufrat 4mo ago

agartner 4mo ago

> the courts don’t care if the license is “as-is”. There isn't any case law to show that. Certainly not in the age of AI. On the criminal side, the CFAA requires "intentionally causes damage" and that's entirely impossible to prove in the age of AI. On the civil side, liability waivers and warranty disclaimers generally cannot shield intentional or willful misconduct or gross negligence.

kelipso 4mo ago

Yeah the maintainers don’t owe users nothing is a disgusting sentiment that doesn’t stand real scrutiny. There is a social contract here. If you want to be respected and get recognized as “tridge” or whatever your name is, you owe the people that recognize you and that wider community in general.

tptacek 4mo ago
No there isn't.
- Eufrat 4mo ago
  I just cannot understand this logic, can you explain why there is no responsibility whatsoever on the part of a maintainer towards the users? Selling a toaster has an implicit warranty of merchantability. Society expects that if you sell me something, it should have certain promises. Yes, there’s no monetary exchange here, the work is given gratis, but there’s still a relationship and an interaction here and I think it is clear some people, like myself, believe that there are implied expectations. Just because it is “free” doesn’t mean it allows one to have a seemingly psychopathic attitude on the matter. It doesn’t absolve people of societal obligations. I read that article by Mike McQuaid and I don’t get the impression that, “Yes, project maintainers should be allowed to run projects as they see fit and they put up with a lot of drive-by insults and hostile users. You don’t understand how hard all of this is and I’m doing it for free.” I get, “I hate my users and you should be grateful that I give you anything.”
  - mikemcquaid 4mo ago
    If I hated my users I wouldn’t work on Homebrew for 17 years. I do hate a small subset of hostile users. The selling metaphor doesn’t work. Homebrew is not sold and its license, effectively a EULA, discloses all warranties because it is not sold and we are not paid a wage to build it. I have also built a bunch of proprietary software for money where my obligations are different. I also enjoy that and my responsibilities differ there. Users should be grateful that they are given anything. We do not get anything from their use. For the vast majority, it is a one way relationship (contributors excluded of course). If they don’t like the choices made by me or the project: they can fork it. They won’t, though, because the closest friend of entitlement is laziness. They can use Nix or MacPorts instead which may be a better fit for them and, if they are not contributing, does not disadvantage Homebrew.

nl 4mo ago

> However, I strongly believe that when you create something for people to use that there’s an implicit social contract about how to go about doing certain things. Wow. The entitlement in this statement is outrageous.

0123456789ABCDE 4mo ago

> I also think that there is a modest duty owed to users to explain things. > I fundamentally disagree that maintainers owe users nothing. > I strongly believe that when you create something for people to use that there’s an implicit social contract about how to go about doing certain things. do you realize how unhinged this all reads like? there is no duty. nothing is owed to no one. there is no implicit anything. this is all happening in your head. you are making up things that don't exist. the social contract is not a real thing either. the only contract you can have with the author of rsync is the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, and then, only when you get a copy of rsync. > getting frustrated and then changing the project to delete the entire system is a crime boop: strawman argument — you have been disqualified > Is any business built on top of rsync going to donate their money in a sustainable manner? does it matter? do you have an invoice for rsync? the author wrote it themselves, he is retired, and sailing. unless google is buying him a new boat, i doubt he gives a crap what anyone has to offer. truly obscene is the fabricated idea that you are owed anything after downloading code from github. > I am also unsure of what to do here either. touch grass?