Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
calcifer's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
Efraim Flashner

@nihilazo
@calcifer no warranty, implied or otherwise. You're welcome to roll up your sleeves and help though.

12 Jun 2023 at 16:06 | Wall-to-wall | Open on tooot.im
17 comments
soweli Niko 🔞

@efraim @calcifer
ah yes because most users totally want to learn c++ to fix the problem they are having with your program which you as a developer released for them to use

12 Jun 2023 at 16:08 | Open on chitter.xyz
troethe

@nihilazo No, but then most users then probably shouldn't use your software. Sharing your code could still be helpful for those people who know the language you wrote it in for example.

12 Jun 2023 at 17:46 | Open on mastodon.green
Ian Turton

@nihilazo @efraim @calcifer there's nothing to stop them paying a competent developer to make the changes that they want. It's nice if it is the main Dev bit it doesn't have to be.

12 Jun 2023 at 18:19 | Open on fosstodon.org
Avocate du gras sucré salé
Ian Turton

@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 vimeo.com/144089061

12 Jun 2023 at 21:20 | Open on fosstodon.org
calcifer :nes_fire:

@nihilazo @efraim the point is many devs aren’t releasing things “for people to use”. They’re releasing them to share knowledge. Thinking of software only as a product for people to use is exactly the problem I’m describing

12 Jun 2023 at 18:28 | Open on hackers.town
Rich Felker

@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.

12 Jun 2023 at 19:01 | Open on hachyderm.io
DELETED

@dalias @nihilazo @efraim @calcifer a friend used to say: it is open source, so when it breaks, you get to keep both pieces.

That's how I see it as well. The dev doesn't have any responsibility with the users (if any).

12 Jun 2023 at 19:25 | Open on social.sdf.org
Rich Felker

@reidrac @nihilazo @efraim @calcifer In my view, they have *some* responsibility not to promote the program as more polished and suitable for particular uses than it actually is.

But "don't share anything unless you're willing to do free support" is just a horribly destructive position.

12 Jun 2023 at 19:27 | Open on hachyderm.io
DELETED

@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.

12 Jun 2023 at 19:33 | Open on social.sdf.org
Penny

@nihilazo @efraim @calcifer So to be clear- if I write software, and don’t have the time/energy/money to do support- I should just keep that software to myself?

12 Jun 2023 at 22:43 | Open on eldritch.cafe
Otto Rask

@nihilazo @efraim @calcifer "for them" is a stretch here. Users are not entitled to anything specific, unless a contract for that something is made.

Simply making code and build steps public with some usage license is not a contract for support of any kind.

13 Jun 2023 at 7:12 | Open on piipitin.fi
Alexander The 1st

@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.

12 Jun 2023 at 20:04 | Open on mstdn.ca
calcifer :nes_fire:

@AT1ST and it’s a distinctly capitalist idea that it’s ok to use free software to make money, but somehow being asked to help maintain said software is too onerous. Where “help” can be code or money. @efraim @nihilazo

12 Jun 2023 at 21:35 | Open on hackers.town
Alexander The 1st

@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.

12 Jun 2023 at 21:39 | Open on mstdn.ca
Alexander The 1st

@calcifer @efraim @nihilazo Like, when an elevator in my apartment building fails, I expect my building manager to get a certified elevator technician to make repairs with it; I fully expect them to pay the person making the repair, and not just go "But it's been free up until now!".

12 Jun 2023 at 21:45 | Open on mstdn.ca
Go Up