 People seem to really have bought into the capitalist version of open source where software is still a product that requires support and marketing and a roadmap and exists to serve a user community separate and apart from the project. But a whole lot of open source is really just a sharing economy. It’s devs doing something they found useful and deciding to share it rather than hoard it. Those devs don’t owe anyone extra labor just because they chose to share. 96 comments
 @calcifer Absolutely. And also it would be nice if more folks expressed appreciation for those people and projects which do provide support for a broader user community. That shouldn't be expected, that should be celebrated. my alternative take - if you release software for people to use, they are your users and as a responsible developer you should offer them support. Don't publish something for people to use if you can't support people using it I don't see this as a capitalist take but a user focused one, software should support its users, if you can't offer support for your software don't release it for people to use @ianturton @nihilazo @efraim @calcifer nothing stopping them? Money, maybe? @strabysme @nihilazo@chitter.xyz @efraim @calcifer if they have no money then they're going to need to learn to program or contribute in some other way. I talked about this 8 years ago https://vimeo.com/144089061  @nihilazo @efraim @calcifer "For them to use" is inaccurate. Unless promoted as such, the default assumption is that the author released it because they don't believe in hoarding and wanted to share their experience solving their problem with others who share a technical skillset to make use of their solution. @dalias @nihilazo @efraim @calcifer totally agree. Strictly speaking, the OSS licences don't cover support. They tend to focus on distribution, but there's always a disclaimer re: responsibility. I've been using and producing open source since the late 90s and I never assumed the devs had to provide support, and I was always grateful when it happened (even on a mailing list, thanks to other users). The way expectations have changed is very interesting.  @efraim @nihilazo @calcifer Here's the thing though with that; we know, from stuff like HeartBleed, that...that just leads to the developer not getting supported even though, given the solution's position in a significant number of pipelines of solutions, them being supported financially to support the software is a really good idea. @calcifer @maddiefuzz oh yeah, my take only applies to open source projects providing end user software. If you're just sharing the source of your website for people to look at if they want to see how you did a thing, you obviously shouldn't need to provide user support if they decide to take bits of your javascript.  @nihilazo @calcifer I’m not sure I’d categorize my take as “open source software developers are required to provide support”. Just that there’s value in considering things from that angle, for some projects. Also, practically: people holding the opinion that developers are *required* to provide support just incentivizes there to be less open source projects.  @klardotsh @maddiefuzz @nihilazo @calcifer it's super simple, they have obligations that they agreed to. If they promised support when advertising for donations, they should follow through. If they put up some kind of donation account with no offers attached, they don't. No activity other than offering support creates a responsibility to provide support.  @kevingranade @maddiefuzz @nihilazo @calcifer I think this is a reasonable take too, and probably closer to the spirit of what I was thinking than what I actually wrote (cursed character limits) @maddiefuzz @nihilazo I didn’t say it’s capitalist to think about a UX or release a product. What’s capitalist is the idea that software MUST BE a product, when it’s often just a way to share ideas.   I'm sorry but this is a really shitty and entitled take. "because these people did all this work, they are now obligated to do more work" No, people get to release things on their own terms. They owe you nothing. @plexus @calcifer do you not think that developers should offer support for the things they make?  @nihilazo @calcifer @plexus there is LOTS of code which I'm glad people (including but not limited to your interlocutor) have released as-is, explicitly without the promise of unpaid support. it's a great kind of open source and we should do more to make it work, by designing software which is easily extended, adapted, or forked.  @daveliepmann @nihilazo @calcifer @plexus this entitled attitude has led me to release way less code, so I guess you’re getting what you want in some Pyrrhic victory sort of way… @jack @daveliepmann @nihilazo @calcifer @plexus me too. Maybe we need a GitHub-alike that has a different set of social expectations and social tools for the "here's some code as-is, where-is" case. @nihilazo @plexus the problem here is you’re fundamentally misunderstanding “release”. If I build software for ME, I can hoard it or I can share it. You’re saying I shouldn’t share it unless I’m prepared to support it. That’s like saying I shouldn’t publish my research unless I’m prepared to answer everyone’s questions about it. Software is not a product! It’s a way of sharing ideas. If you don't want to use unsupported software, just don't use it. Why is the onus on the devs to fulfil your requirements, when you can just make a principled decision for yourself and not use those products while those that see some benefit in them still get to reap it?  @alcinnz @nihilazo @calcifer It's not hard to make the situation clear in the README file in my experience. Not much different from the situation when the developer needs to stop providing support after some event in their life. Publishing it may give someone else a jumpstart in their own project and it would be a shame to keep that from happening just because you are 'throwing it over the wall'. You don't know if someone is on the other side ready to catch it!   @nihilazo @calcifer Considering that the status quo is basically software not existing, FOSS developers sharing their work for free is not something you can take for granted. As such, I think your take is incredibly entitled. "user focused" can't be the automatic default, when the developer gets literally nothing in return for people using their software. @nihilazo let's approach this in terms of tradeoffs. @calcifer's stance leads to more open source code, but most of it would be useless for non-programmers. Your scheme leads to well-supported projects, but there would be fewer of them. I suspect that we paradoxically get more high-quality (and well-supported) projects the first way than the second—even if they represent a smaller percentage of projects—based on how much good FOSS starts out done as "just a hobby, won't be big and professional". @nihilazo @calcifer a notion which I think is implicit in your comment, and one that I really like and suspect some people have missed, is a recognition that nobody releases code into the void. The stuff we do is part of a community, and we should reflect on how our actions affect our community. IMHO, a simple acknowledgement would go a long way; e.g. "I can't offer much support for this code, but I think it could be useful and would love to see it incorporated into somebody else's project."  @nihilazo @calcifer I disagree with the alternate take... As long as somebody is upfront with whether or not they're willing to support what they put out there, there should be no expectations otherwise. The whole point of open source is that you're free to support yourself or seek someone else to provide support for something. @nihilazo the thing is a lot of these projects aren’t “for people to use” in the way you describe. They’re for the person who wrote them. They’re just putting them out there in case someone else finds it useful. Your position is basically “don’t share what you learned unless you’ll treat it as a product”, and that is a very capitalist model. Maybe one way to put it is that yes, a responsible developer will stand by his application, but in the open source world developers are free not to be so responsible :) Really, it’s like writing good comments in the code: arguably a developer SHOULD write good comments, but obviously devs, especially volunteer ones, often don’t.  @nihilazo hard disagree; no one is required to take your gift, no one is required to support a gift accepted freely. Having the source available is still valuable, even if it's never compiled and run. The license and terms of use are usually pretty clear about this. That mindset is just gonna leave us all poorer though. Even imperfect/partially supported software can be useful to people or provide building blocks for something better. Having hard expectations on devs to do extensive support isn't gonna lead to a world of better products, it's just gonna lead to a world where we all have less opportunities and means. I tend to think it's a bit more orthogonal than that: you can be running a capitalist software company and still throw out a quick "here's a thing we made to solve problem X, not worth selling, use at own risk", or you can be an open source project and make some reasonable promises to have people's back re support, future directions, etc. when they commit $IMPORTANT_THING to 140,000 lines of python they barely understand. It only gets messy when people hear promises that weren't made, make promises they don't intend to deliver, or worse, pulls some I-am-altering-the-bargain bullshit. But that's a knife that cuts all ways.  @calcifer @gilesgoat @calcifer certainly in my case there are companies that support the software I and others write. But we only provide support to the people and companies that pay for that support. If you just download the product then you are on your own, we'll answer questions on the user list if we have time but we can't promise. @gilesgoat @calcifer developers are certainly allowed to productize their software, offer support etc, but this post is about an expectation that they are required to do so simply because they released the software. @calcifer@hackers.town   @calcifer @paninid The question is whether the vision for what the developer releases includes the idea that everyone gets to use what was released. I have to tell you, as a blind person trying to use a lot of these shared products and then be told that #accessibility wasn't considered in the development process is highly discouraging (if not completely demoralizing).  @calcifer My ongoing question is whether there are non capitalist models that could include all those things and more. @calcifer yes, this. I find this „FLOSS as a product“ thing really alienating. When I started it used to be about sharing code and liberating users, mostly by enthusiasts and hobbyists. And with that attitude you have projects like Gnome who have broken #accessibility for years now. And their argument is "We are just volunteers." Well here's the thing though I would rather have a community of sharing and mutual aid. Which is not divided to developers/users false dichotomies. The mentality of "dump code" and who cares about other people is what got us into the mess we are today. @msavoritias it’s a hell of a thing to think it’s a “mess” that there’s high-quality, free software that helps millions of people, just because those volunteers aren’t working on everything you care about. If you’re not willing to invest time and effort and money toward adding the capabilities you want, why do you feel entitled to demand others do so? It’s a lot like getting a free car and being mad at the person who gave it to you because it doesn’t have snow tires @calcifer I've canceled projects before on the basis that I realized that I didn't want to provide free tech support for them. I ended up learning to only work unpaid on software that solves needs/wants I personally have.  Whenever I see someone complaining about some OS project owner not responding or refusing to accept their feature request or not pulling their janky patch my response is simple: "Fork it or shut up." It's funny how they never want to be in the shoes of the person they are complaining about. @calcifer Imagine if scientists hoarded their knowledge until they could make something practical out of it, or until they were sure that they could answer every possible follow up question, even if those questions were unrelated to their initial research.  @calcifer@hackers.town hm  @calcifer I agree, but I'm really replying because I'm excited about your handle. My beagle is called Calcifer. :) |
Gregory's Server
@calcifer Amen to that. This has been enough for me to archive or never release projects rather than deal with people being as demanding as baby birds.