4 ms·

If you don't plan to maintain your code what you did is not "open sourcing": it is merely a source code "release". "Open source" means "welcome", if you don't m

If you don't plan to maintain your code what you did is not "open sourcing": it is merely a source code "release". "Open source" means "welcome", if you don't mean it, don't say it. If you are tired of maintaining your old project just put a tar.gz of the last stable release up on your own site and let it die or be used. Or, at the very least, disable GitHub's issue tracker.

svisser 12y ago
Open sourcing does not imply future maintenance. That's why everyone should evaluate the state of a project before starting to use it.
- duskwuff 12y ago
  There is one good point made, though: if you don't plan on maintaining a project, you might as well disable issues and pull requests on Github. Leaving them on gives the (false) impression that you'll respond to them.
- johncoltrane 12y ago
  Putting the site on a social site and setting up an issue tracker implies future maintenance. Making it clear in the README that no maintenance is guaranteed and disabling the issue tracker should be enough to send the message to would be users. If the OP doesn't do that he is actively implying future maintenance.
  - dalke 12y ago
    It does not imply future maintenance, any more than having an account on Facebook means that you'll reply to anyone else's comment, pokes, or app requests, or that you'll even log in again. Having an account on Twitter doesn't mean there's an obligation to respond to every tweet directed your way. In dating web sites there's no obligation to reply to every "hi, I'm interested in you" message. In fact, in no social site I know of has an obligation for future engagement. Why is code different? You also assume that "social" => "with the world." If I want to work on a project with friends in California and New Zealand, why not set it up as a public account on github? We're being social, just not social with you. Our obligations are towards each other, not some stranger on the internet.
jrochkind1 12y ago
I disagree. It's certainly still 'open sourcing' if it's released under an open source license. But some people (like you) will assume by default that it is supported. So be clear in your README that it ain't. I think we should start popularizing the term 'abandonware' here -- some code starts out as abandonware, but other code becomes so when the authors lose interest. We all know that using abandonware is 'riskier' to your project long-term than using supported open source, and many of us find ourselves depending on abandonware that used to be supported, and looking for alternatives. So it goes. And especially for 'abandonware', I think it's actually much better to put it in a github repo than as a .tar.gz. One of the main uses for born-abandoned open source would be to look at the source code as an example and copy-paste from it, and a github repo makes those sorts of uses a lot easier in several ways than a .tar.gz.
smacktoward 12y ago
If you release it under an open source license, you've open sourced it. Nothing changes if you do so with the intention of never touching it again.
- johncoltrane 12y ago
  Except for the neverending stream of issues that will kind of force you to keep working on your code if you are not a jerk. Make it clear in the README that you won't provide any further support and disable the issue tracker if you don't want people to contribute or ask for help.
  - pnt12 12y ago
    I don't agree. If someone releases open-sourced code, others are free to use it and modify it. Why would the developer who shared the code be a jerk if it didn't fit the needs of others? I also don't understand why someone would expect continuous support without checking whether the project is in development or not.
ripb 12y ago
>If you don't plan to maintain your code what you did is not "open sourcing": it is merely a source code "release". "Open source" means "welcome", if you don't mean it, don't say it. This is about as incorrect a statement as one could make on the issue.
- johncoltrane 12y ago
  And you did nothing to explain why. Thanks for your input.
  - dalke 12y ago
    Others have already explained why. The parent poster is expressing annoyance at your presumption that others have any obligation. In any case, your definition is in stark conflict with historical usage. "Open source" was coined in 1998 when the majority of releases were as tarballs on ftp sites, and SourceForge hadn't even started. By your definition then, all of those self-labeled open source projects of 1998 didn't actually exist. It's also ridiculous because it means that when I die, and there's no one else who wants to support it any more, then it somehow loses its "open source" status.
  - pnt12 12y ago
    You won't find any popular open-source license that mentions active development.
EugeneOZ 12y ago
I agree. If somebody wants just publish sources - zip archive is enough. And this format will be answer to questions "can I rely on that?", "will security issues be fixed?", "can I ask for more documentation?". With zip archive all answers are "No". Publishing code to CVS repository means "welcome for collaboration, we expect your commits, PRs, issues".
- jrochkind1 12y ago
  zip archive isn't enough to find source code googling, or to view a source file in the browser to see how the code works or to copy-and-paste from it, or to use github's search feature to search the whole repo in my browser, or (if hosted on github) to press one button to fork the repo into my own github account as a convenient way of modifying it. Those are all things i am likely to want to do with code published open source but as unsupported 'abandonware', use it as an example to look at and copy and paste from, instead of just using the product as is as without looking at the source. In fact, the one thing I'd be less likely to want to do with abandonware -- actually install and use it, instead of just consulting it as an example -- is the one thing you haven't actually made that much more difficult by publishing only as an archive.
- dalke 12y ago
  I have code on SourceForge that I haven't touched in 10 years. I'll only maintain it if someone pays me to work on it. Should I shut down the SF account? Actually, I think what you imply is publishing source code in a public repository says that I have a social obligation to work at no cost. Why can't I charge for my time? Why can't I ignore people I don't like?
  - EugeneOZ 12y ago
    You can, just write about it in README to not give false hopes.
    - dalke 12y ago
      You mean, "send me email if you've got a problem. I might respond if I feel like it, but don't hold your breath. If you catch me at a conference then even better. If you offer me money it's more likely to hold my interest."? That seems rather ... needless. Surely it's better to assume that no one is obligated to respond to you than to cater to unrealistic and unreasonable hopes and promote this practice as being somehow necessarily. I also doubt it will make a difference. People don't read READMEs in general, much less for details about support options.
chrismcb 12y ago
How is putting a tar.gz of the file, saying people can use it under an open spouse license NOT open sourcing it? You can open source your code without putting it on github.

svisser 12y ago

Open sourcing does not imply future maintenance. That's why everyone should evaluate the state of a project before starting to use it.

duskwuff 12y ago
There is one good point made, though: if you don't plan on maintaining a project, you might as well disable issues and pull requests on Github. Leaving them on gives the (false) impression that you'll respond to them.
johncoltrane 12y ago
Putting the site on a social site and setting up an issue tracker implies future maintenance. Making it clear in the README that no maintenance is guaranteed and disabling the issue tracker should be enough to send the message to would be users. If the OP doesn't do that he is actively implying future maintenance.
- dalke 12y ago
  It does not imply future maintenance, any more than having an account on Facebook means that you'll reply to anyone else's comment, pokes, or app requests, or that you'll even log in again. Having an account on Twitter doesn't mean there's an obligation to respond to every tweet directed your way. In dating web sites there's no obligation to reply to every "hi, I'm interested in you" message. In fact, in no social site I know of has an obligation for future engagement. Why is code different? You also assume that "social" => "with the world." If I want to work on a project with friends in California and New Zealand, why not set it up as a public account on github? We're being social, just not social with you. Our obligations are towards each other, not some stranger on the internet.

jrochkind1 12y ago

I disagree. It's certainly still 'open sourcing' if it's released under an open source license. But some people (like you) will assume by default that it is supported. So be clear in your README that it ain't. I think we should start popularizing the term 'abandonware' here -- some code starts out as abandonware, but other code becomes so when the authors lose interest. We all know that using abandonware is 'riskier' to your project long-term than using supported open source, and many of us find ourselves depending on abandonware that used to be supported, and looking for alternatives. So it goes. And especially for 'abandonware', I think it's actually much better to put it in a github repo than as a .tar.gz. One of the main uses for born-abandoned open source would be to look at the source code as an example and copy-paste from it, and a github repo makes those sorts of uses a lot easier in several ways than a .tar.gz.

smacktoward 12y ago

If you release it under an open source license, you've open sourced it. Nothing changes if you do so with the intention of never touching it again.

johncoltrane 12y ago
Except for the neverending stream of issues that will kind of force you to keep working on your code if you are not a jerk. Make it clear in the README that you won't provide any further support and disable the issue tracker if you don't want people to contribute or ask for help.
- pnt12 12y ago
  I don't agree. If someone releases open-sourced code, others are free to use it and modify it. Why would the developer who shared the code be a jerk if it didn't fit the needs of others? I also don't understand why someone would expect continuous support without checking whether the project is in development or not.

ripb 12y ago

>If you don't plan to maintain your code what you did is not "open sourcing": it is merely a source code "release". "Open source" means "welcome", if you don't mean it, don't say it. This is about as incorrect a statement as one could make on the issue.

johncoltrane 12y ago
And you did nothing to explain why. Thanks for your input.
- dalke 12y ago
  Others have already explained why. The parent poster is expressing annoyance at your presumption that others have any obligation. In any case, your definition is in stark conflict with historical usage. "Open source" was coined in 1998 when the majority of releases were as tarballs on ftp sites, and SourceForge hadn't even started. By your definition then, all of those self-labeled open source projects of 1998 didn't actually exist. It's also ridiculous because it means that when I die, and there's no one else who wants to support it any more, then it somehow loses its "open source" status.
- pnt12 12y ago
  You won't find any popular open-source license that mentions active development.

EugeneOZ 12y ago

I agree. If somebody wants just publish sources - zip archive is enough. And this format will be answer to questions "can I rely on that?", "will security issues be fixed?", "can I ask for more documentation?". With zip archive all answers are "No". Publishing code to CVS repository means "welcome for collaboration, we expect your commits, PRs, issues".

jrochkind1 12y ago
zip archive isn't enough to find source code googling, or to view a source file in the browser to see how the code works or to copy-and-paste from it, or to use github's search feature to search the whole repo in my browser, or (if hosted on github) to press one button to fork the repo into my own github account as a convenient way of modifying it. Those are all things i am likely to want to do with code published open source but as unsupported 'abandonware', use it as an example to look at and copy and paste from, instead of just using the product as is as without looking at the source. In fact, the one thing I'd be less likely to want to do with abandonware -- actually install and use it, instead of just consulting it as an example -- is the one thing you haven't actually made that much more difficult by publishing only as an archive.
dalke 12y ago
I have code on SourceForge that I haven't touched in 10 years. I'll only maintain it if someone pays me to work on it. Should I shut down the SF account? Actually, I think what you imply is publishing source code in a public repository says that I have a social obligation to work at no cost. Why can't I charge for my time? Why can't I ignore people I don't like?
- EugeneOZ 12y ago
  You can, just write about it in README to not give false hopes.
  - dalke 12y ago
    You mean, "send me email if you've got a problem. I might respond if I feel like it, but don't hold your breath. If you catch me at a conference then even better. If you offer me money it's more likely to hold my interest."? That seems rather ... needless. Surely it's better to assume that no one is obligated to respond to you than to cater to unrealistic and unreasonable hopes and promote this practice as being somehow necessarily. I also doubt it will make a difference. People don't read READMEs in general, much less for details about support options.

chrismcb 12y ago

How is putting a tar.gz of the file, saying people can use it under an open spouse license NOT open sourcing it? You can open source your code without putting it on github.