4 ms·

It's scary, but even if you release something as open source, for free and free for people to modify as they please, you're still in a weird relationship with t

It's scary, but even if you release something as open source, for free and free for people to modify as they please, you're still in a weird relationship with the people that use your software. You haven't exactly promised to do anything for them, and the code as-is is in itself a great gift... but on the other hand, there's an implicit acknowledgement that "yes, you can build on this". (Both the open letter and the response from Tom Dale seem to acknowledge that there's two sides to this issue, which is refreshing. Usually you get these really boorish "dude, it's open source, just fix it yourself will ya" responses.) It makes me wary of pushing any of my projects. I still open source pretty much everything I do, but usually with a big fat "for your edification, don't expect any support or ongoing development" disclaimer. (Also see fat's "What Is Open Source & Why Do I Feel So Guilty? at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIDb6VBO9os http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIDb6VBO9os)

tlrobinson 14y ago
Maybe the open source community needs a sort of standard way of declaring/disclaiming how production-ready a project is, and how much effort we intend to put into supporting it.
- jamesbritt 14y ago
  People should assume that if there is no affirmative declaration of "This is production ready" then the code is not production ready. If there is no affirmative declaration of "I will be actively supporting this beyond my own personal needs" then assume that the code will not be supported beyond the personal needs of the project owner. Or people can just ask, instead complaining (however well-intended) that their assumptions have turned out false. This is like people who build a business on some aspect of Twitter or Facebook then complain that Twitter or Facebook is shutting them out. If you are using someone else's code or API make sure you get some positive, unambiguous statement from the owner about what to expect. Things can still go south, but then you at least have a legitimate gripe.
- steveklabnik 14y ago
  In the gist, even though the Ember Data README states that it's not production ready, the author complains that it 'should be' or something. We have that standard, it's called '1.0'.

tlrobinson 14y ago

Maybe the open source community needs a sort of standard way of declaring/disclaiming how production-ready a project is, and how much effort we intend to put into supporting it.

jamesbritt 14y ago
People should assume that if there is no affirmative declaration of "This is production ready" then the code is not production ready. If there is no affirmative declaration of "I will be actively supporting this beyond my own personal needs" then assume that the code will not be supported beyond the personal needs of the project owner. Or people can just ask, instead complaining (however well-intended) that their assumptions have turned out false. This is like people who build a business on some aspect of Twitter or Facebook then complain that Twitter or Facebook is shutting them out. If you are using someone else's code or API make sure you get some positive, unambiguous statement from the owner about what to expect. Things can still go south, but then you at least have a legitimate gripe.
steveklabnik 14y ago
In the gist, even though the Ember Data README states that it's not production ready, the author complains that it 'should be' or something. We have that standard, it's called '1.0'.