|
Top-level
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 63 comments
@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 @efraim @nihilazo I think there's a disconnect: the individual free software isn't what they use to make money most of the time - it's just part of the process or pipeline that *does* make a person money. And I'm not saying that they *shouldn't* help maintain software, but that realistically, it's probably better to have a way to pay the people a part of the money they make to pay the people who *can* help make it better in a better way. @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 Iâm not sure Iâd categorize my take as âopen source software developers are required to provide supportâ. Just that thereâs 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)  @kevingranade @klardotsh @maddiefuzz @nihilazo @calcifer but the problem stated by the OP is that (some) people tend to expect and demand support even when none was promised, or was even explicitly and loudly disclaimed. @maddiefuzz @nihilazo I didnât say itâs capitalist to think about a UX or release a product. Whatâs capitalist is the idea that software MUST BE a product, when itâs 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 youâre 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.   @jack @daveliepmann @nihilazo @calcifer @plexus Seriously, Jack? Just software as-is without any support can be immensely useful. Not just to use or run, but also to learn from or use bits of. I can recommend ignoring these entitled pricks. They are being a net-negative to open-source and free software. Browsing the (not obscured) source of one of your fxhash projects got me started there, so thanks! @nihilazo @plexus the problem here is youâre fundamentally misunderstanding âreleaseâ. If I build software for ME, I can hoard it or I can share it. Youâre saying I shouldnât share it unless Iâm prepared to support it. Thatâs like saying I shouldnât publish my research unless Iâm prepared to answer everyoneâs questions about it. Software is not a product! Itâs 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?  @nihilazo @calcifer @plexus This is a warped view of the development process that assumes we are omniscient beings with unlimited resources building software in a vacuum. In the real world, the open source landscape is constantly shifting based on what exists and what is needed, and where we devote our time is dictated by community support. In other words, developers never say, "I'm going to release this and not support it! Muhahahaha!"  @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 secondâeven if they represent a smaller percentage of projectsâbased 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 arenât âfor people to useâ in the way you describe. Theyâre for the person who wrote them. Theyâre just putting them out there in case someone else finds it useful. Your position is basically âdonât share what you learned unless youâll treat it as a productâ, 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, itâs like writing good comments in the code: arguably a developer SHOULD write good comments, but obviously devs, especially volunteer ones, often donât.  @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.  @nihilazo I disagree. Instead: Make it clear what level of support they can expect. Or how they can get support (you are well in your right to tell them that support costs money). I have already spent unpaid all-nighters to fix an urgent problem in software I care about, but if someone were to tell me I owe them that, Iâd tell them to pay me what theyâd have to pay to get an onsite Oracle employee (around 3k⏠per day).  @nihilazo @calcifer hereâs the thing, though. Sometimes a hobby is just a hobby. And a gift a gift. If you do a quilt and give it to your aunt and eventually, it tears apart, you donât want her to yell entitledly. It might dissuade you dem ever giving her something again. Now, software is a bit different because of security risks, but still. |
Gregory's Server
@nihilazo
@calcifer no warranty, implied or otherwise. You're welcome to roll up your sleeves and help though.