3 ms·

unbelievable, how can a single person affect negatively FOSS so much? I mean really, closing repos? excluding maintainers? committing only on private repos? T

by giov4 1mo ago

unbelievable, how can a single person affect negatively FOSS so much? I mean really, closing repos? excluding maintainers? committing only on private repos? This type of behavior should be moderated and banned from any FOSS activity to avoid exactly this situation of becoming a liability. I've never seen a open source project page without a github link or a git clone ref like this https://www.encode.io/hx/ https://www.encode.io/hx/ it is so ridiculous, wasn't that stuff on github? and isn't it anyway there due to over 1k forks? what's the advantage of having this behavior? I see it only damaging towards the person, the project and the community.

trallnag 1mo ago
Maybe mental health issues? We aren't entitled to indefinite maintenance of free software
- giov4 1mo ago
  yes I believe we are, and such indefinite maintenance is the result of FOSS and open repos and open collaboration that can re-iterate and keep a strong and decent level of maintenance. maintainers are very important to me because i know the effort behind and the backbone of passion that holds them alive, and I would do the same, I would do it for passion and ask nothing back, especially topics like Credits and Copyrights (go check the related history, a shame)
mmerickel 1mo ago
This level of entitlement is the reason that FOSS has a maintenance / support epidemic. Maintainers don't owe you anything. They put the work in, not you.
- giov4 1mo ago
  they owe us the responsibility of having created, released and maintained something that they created and they are responsible for. If you cannot handle or take this responsibility towards the community you cannot do opensource. just do a company and try to profit, but don't interfere with FOSS and impact FOSS in general if you cannot handle it.
  - duskdozer 1mo ago
    From the software license: >THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. https://github.com/encode/httpx/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/encode/httpx/blob/master/LICENSE.md The contributors provided the source of the project under these terms, which are stated up front. Any responsibility to you beyond this is imagined.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
prmoustache 1mo ago
> how can a single person affect negatively FOSS so much? FOSS is not affected negatively. First because FOSS is not en entity in the first place. There is no "community" per se but a muriad of softwares choosing open source licences for various reasons. Second because the choices of one project maintainer is negligible. > This type of behavior should be moderated and banned from any FOSS activity Banned by who and where? > I've never seen a open source project page without a github link or a git clone ref Now I understand. You must be new. How old are you? 10? FOSS has existed way before github and will probably still exist when github will be forgotten. There are still many open source projects not using github, some do not even use git. > what's the advantage of having this behavior? Not having to deal with external input, PRs, bug reports seems to be a good example. > I see it only damaging towards the person Which person? The maintainer? I highly doubt so. > the project The project will be fine as long as the maintainer wants it to be active. This is the only thing that counts. > and the community. Which community? Other devs? They can (and do) fork when they wish to do so.
- giov4 1mo ago
  >FOSS is not affected negatively. First because FOSS is not en entity in the first place. There is no "community" per se but a muriad of softwares choosing open source licences for various reasons. Second because the choices of one project maintainer is negligible. Yes it is, this was a major component. >This type of behavior should be moderated and banned from any FOSS activity By moderators that are not existing but should actually moderate human mental issues affecting FOSS >Now I understand. You must be new. How old are you? 10? FOSS has existed way before github and will probably still exist when github will be forgotten. There are still many open source projects not using github, some do not even use git. Nope, is just that a useful open source project for me has always public report and that's the basis to start collaborating. >Not having to deal with external input, PRs, bug reports seems to be a good example. That's normal in open source, should be taken into account and managed like everybody else does in open source projects. Just go look at sftpgo, as an example. >Which person? The maintainer? I highly doubt so. Yes clearly, the community easily realizes this behavior and now I see a private path of commits in private reps of somebody working alone. >The project will be fine as long as the maintainer wants it to be active. This is the only thing that counts. Nope, forked, hated and closed are not fine for an open source project. >Which community? Other devs? They can (and do) fork when they wish to do so. All of it, anybody using the open source, should be free to use, modify and collaborate on a project independently from the mental issues of the one that started it. closing repos just goes against all of this and should be a shame.

by giov4 1mo ago

trallnag 1mo ago

Maybe mental health issues? We aren't entitled to indefinite maintenance of free software

giov4 1mo ago
yes I believe we are, and such indefinite maintenance is the result of FOSS and open repos and open collaboration that can re-iterate and keep a strong and decent level of maintenance. maintainers are very important to me because i know the effort behind and the backbone of passion that holds them alive, and I would do the same, I would do it for passion and ask nothing back, especially topics like Credits and Copyrights (go check the related history, a shame)

mmerickel 1mo ago

This level of entitlement is the reason that FOSS has a maintenance / support epidemic. Maintainers don't owe you anything. They put the work in, not you.

giov4 1mo ago
they owe us the responsibility of having created, released and maintained something that they created and they are responsible for. If you cannot handle or take this responsibility towards the community you cannot do opensource. just do a company and try to profit, but don't interfere with FOSS and impact FOSS in general if you cannot handle it.
- duskdozer 1mo ago
  From the software license: >THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. https://github.com/encode/httpx/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/encode/httpx/blob/master/LICENSE.md The contributors provided the source of the project under these terms, which are stated up front. Any responsibility to you beyond this is imagined.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

prmoustache 1mo ago

> how can a single person affect negatively FOSS so much? FOSS is not affected negatively. First because FOSS is not en entity in the first place. There is no "community" per se but a muriad of softwares choosing open source licences for various reasons. Second because the choices of one project maintainer is negligible. > This type of behavior should be moderated and banned from any FOSS activity Banned by who and where? > I've never seen a open source project page without a github link or a git clone ref Now I understand. You must be new. How old are you? 10? FOSS has existed way before github and will probably still exist when github will be forgotten. There are still many open source projects not using github, some do not even use git. > what's the advantage of having this behavior? Not having to deal with external input, PRs, bug reports seems to be a good example. > I see it only damaging towards the person Which person? The maintainer? I highly doubt so. > the project The project will be fine as long as the maintainer wants it to be active. This is the only thing that counts. > and the community. Which community? Other devs? They can (and do) fork when they wish to do so.

giov4 1mo ago
>FOSS is not affected negatively. First because FOSS is not en entity in the first place. There is no "community" per se but a muriad of softwares choosing open source licences for various reasons. Second because the choices of one project maintainer is negligible. Yes it is, this was a major component. >This type of behavior should be moderated and banned from any FOSS activity By moderators that are not existing but should actually moderate human mental issues affecting FOSS >Now I understand. You must be new. How old are you? 10? FOSS has existed way before github and will probably still exist when github will be forgotten. There are still many open source projects not using github, some do not even use git. Nope, is just that a useful open source project for me has always public report and that's the basis to start collaborating. >Not having to deal with external input, PRs, bug reports seems to be a good example. That's normal in open source, should be taken into account and managed like everybody else does in open source projects. Just go look at sftpgo, as an example. >Which person? The maintainer? I highly doubt so. Yes clearly, the community easily realizes this behavior and now I see a private path of commits in private reps of somebody working alone. >The project will be fine as long as the maintainer wants it to be active. This is the only thing that counts. Nope, forked, hated and closed are not fine for an open source project. >Which community? Other devs? They can (and do) fork when they wish to do so. All of it, anybody using the open source, should be free to use, modify and collaborate on a project independently from the mental issues of the one that started it. closing repos just goes against all of this and should be a shame.