3 ms·
> If you're using a free license, that license says it's everyone's project, not just yours. Maybe, but the lead developer is the one in charge of the software
by drivingmenuts 12y ago
> If you're using a free license, that license says it's everyone's project, not just yours.
Maybe, but the lead developer is the one in charge of the software. If the community doesn't like it, they can request a change in leadership or fork the project.
> So if two people want to take "your" free software and enter an economic agreement to improve "your" free software in a way that benefits both of them, why should you have a right to say "no"?
For all the reasons mentioned above (forward-planning, insight, etc.). If someone wishes to make a change to a project, in such a way that benefits them, the project itself is never required to just accept the changes. That someone can fork the project.
Is that always the right answer? No. But it is one possibility.
- jordigh 12y agoNobody is saying that anyone is obligated to accept any patches. Nobody wants to be forced to accept patches, nobody is trying to force anyone to accept any patches.
- drivingmenuts 12y agoBut if you introduce money into the equation, denying someone's patch may be perceived as denying that person income. Think about it: if you're project is running merrily along and Bob the Random Programmer tries to collect a bounty but his patch is denied, what's he going to think? He may very well think his patch was denied and he won't collect the bounty, thus he starts pressuring the project leader to take his patch. It introduces potential problems and considerations that some project leaders don't want to have to deal with or even think about, because they aren't technical issues.