4 ms·

sensible right up until they start rejecting patches for needed features because they conflict with commercial goals. There's a legitimate conflict of interest

sensible right up until they start rejecting patches for needed features because they conflict with commercial goals. There's a legitimate conflict of interest here.

fsniper 13y ago
No you can always fork. That's a business they have the right to accept or reject patches however they like.
- makomk 13y ago
  Yeah, and other businesses have the right to conclude that they'd rather use a full-featured open source web server than one that's crippled to create a market for the expensive proprietary version. Of course, some people in this discussion seem to disagree - I've seen a lot of people acting as though it's somehow unfair to nginx for him to point this out to other potential nginx users or to switch to a different server rather thay paying up. It's like people here think the nginx developers have some right to bait people in with the open source version and then charge vast sums for basic features, and that anyone who isn't onboard with this scheme is greedy.
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    They're giving away high quality software for free, with the source code, and a liberal open source licence. They don't owe anyone shit...
    - GhotiFish 13y ago
      you're right, they don't owe anyone anything, but no one is saying "You MUST do what I say". The story is clearly pointing out what appears to be a flaw, that has being patched, but won't be accepted, because of a conflict of interest. It's something to make noise over, and eventually, something to fork over. People make noise so it doesn't come to that. Very reasonable, if you ask me.
  - fsniper 13y ago
    I am not against someone deciding to ditch some software in any means they believe fit. But thinking any company should go on development according to other party's demands and otherwise asking third parties to ditch the software is nonsense.
    - fsniper 13y ago
      Ofcourse if the other party is not employing the developer company..
    - Shamanmuni 13y ago
      As the article states, a patch exists which implements the functionality required by the author, so the only 'demand' is to apply that patch, hardly a monumental task. The problem here is that Nginx developers refuse to implement a free patch which already exists for a feature easily found in the competition in order to protect their business model. Sure, what Nginx devs do is a legitimate practice, as legitimate as the author complaining about it and proposing a change of software or a fork. I don't understand why many get so upset about it.
- ars_technician 13y ago
  >No you can always fork. What are you saying 'no' to? They have a conflict of interest since they are clearly in the business of selling features. It was a statement, and saying 'you can always fork' does not refute that statement.
  - fsniper 13y ago
    No it is not insensible if they start rejecting patches for needed features because they conflict with commercial goals. If you want your patches to be upstream you should make sure they must be compatible with the upstream's goals. If you do not want to obey or play along with upstream you may become an upstream yourself or pay someone to be the upstream with your goals.
    - makomk 13y ago
      Except that danenania's comment which started this entire chain of discussion was portraying switching to software with an upstream whose goals were compatible - namely Apache - as an overreaction and somehow a betrayal of open source.
      - Mikeb85 13y ago
        It is a reaction, one that is perfectly acceptable. However to slam Nginx because they want to sell their product is an overreaction. Either accept that the Nginx creators can do what they want, or switch to Apache, but don't bitch about it. Whining that "X won't give me a feature for free" is ridiculous.
        GhotiFish 13y ago
        Likewise, forking from the mainline at the first sign of devs behaving badly is an overreaction. You don't throw out a team on the first sign of them doing something you don't like, that's crazy. There's nothing wrong with complaining about a conflict of interest. It only becomes a problem if the complaints continue, nothing changes, and no one forks. Then you and I will be telling people not to whine.
adobriyan 13y ago
How DARE they do what they want with the code they wrote! this hip young whatever rubbish can not even handle load generated from HN front page, maybe they should not ditch Nginx for now and use it to survive slashdot effect, but then of course ditch this horrible horrible web server...

sensible right up until they start rejecting patches for needed features because they conflict with commercial goals. There's a legitimate conflict of interest here.

fsniper 13y ago

No you can always fork. That's a business they have the right to accept or reject patches however they like.

makomk 13y ago
Yeah, and other businesses have the right to conclude that they'd rather use a full-featured open source web server than one that's crippled to create a market for the expensive proprietary version. Of course, some people in this discussion seem to disagree - I've seen a lot of people acting as though it's somehow unfair to nginx for him to point this out to other potential nginx users or to switch to a different server rather thay paying up. It's like people here think the nginx developers have some right to bait people in with the open source version and then charge vast sums for basic features, and that anyone who isn't onboard with this scheme is greedy.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  They're giving away high quality software for free, with the source code, and a liberal open source licence. They don't owe anyone shit...
  - GhotiFish 13y ago
    you're right, they don't owe anyone anything, but no one is saying "You MUST do what I say". The story is clearly pointing out what appears to be a flaw, that has being patched, but won't be accepted, because of a conflict of interest. It's something to make noise over, and eventually, something to fork over. People make noise so it doesn't come to that. Very reasonable, if you ask me.
- fsniper 13y ago
  I am not against someone deciding to ditch some software in any means they believe fit. But thinking any company should go on development according to other party's demands and otherwise asking third parties to ditch the software is nonsense.
  - fsniper 13y ago
    Ofcourse if the other party is not employing the developer company..
  - Shamanmuni 13y ago
    As the article states, a patch exists which implements the functionality required by the author, so the only 'demand' is to apply that patch, hardly a monumental task. The problem here is that Nginx developers refuse to implement a free patch which already exists for a feature easily found in the competition in order to protect their business model. Sure, what Nginx devs do is a legitimate practice, as legitimate as the author complaining about it and proposing a change of software or a fork. I don't understand why many get so upset about it.
ars_technician 13y ago
>No you can always fork. What are you saying 'no' to? They have a conflict of interest since they are clearly in the business of selling features. It was a statement, and saying 'you can always fork' does not refute that statement.
- fsniper 13y ago
  No it is not insensible if they start rejecting patches for needed features because they conflict with commercial goals. If you want your patches to be upstream you should make sure they must be compatible with the upstream's goals. If you do not want to obey or play along with upstream you may become an upstream yourself or pay someone to be the upstream with your goals.
  - makomk 13y ago
    Except that danenania's comment which started this entire chain of discussion was portraying switching to software with an upstream whose goals were compatible - namely Apache - as an overreaction and somehow a betrayal of open source.
    - Mikeb85 13y ago
      It is a reaction, one that is perfectly acceptable. However to slam Nginx because they want to sell their product is an overreaction. Either accept that the Nginx creators can do what they want, or switch to Apache, but don't bitch about it. Whining that "X won't give me a feature for free" is ridiculous.
      - GhotiFish 13y ago
        Likewise, forking from the mainline at the first sign of devs behaving badly is an overreaction. You don't throw out a team on the first sign of them doing something you don't like, that's crazy. There's nothing wrong with complaining about a conflict of interest. It only becomes a problem if the complaints continue, nothing changes, and no one forks. Then you and I will be telling people not to whine.

adobriyan 13y ago

How DARE they do what they want with the code they wrote! this hip young whatever rubbish can not even handle load generated from HN front page, maybe they should not ditch Nginx for now and use it to survive slashdot effect, but then of course ditch this horrible horrible web server...