Or just open a ticket on the package and inform the user one "has 'technically' done all one could do given time constraints"?
I get the frustration, but this looks like a case of improper idiot handling that just escalated...
WiringPi – deprecated
121–130 of 151 posts
Re: WiringPi – deprecated
#122Sad to see it go like that.
Yet another example how ungrateful many people are towards free software.
The only difference to piracy, is that not only do they not give back anything, they feel entitled to all kind of requests.
So the result ends always being the same, moving to something else.
Re: WiringPi – deprecated
#123Re: WiringPi – deprecated
#124I have used WiringPi along my side of work and I am thankful to the author for creating and maintaining it, but honestly I don't understand the motivation behind offering a free product with email support. There are many different people on the Internet with different cultural backgrounds, experience levels and work ethic and unfortunately it's not realistic to expect each of your users to share the same values as yo…
I’ve been maintaining free software for a while and people have been actively hunting for my email for support, completely ignoring clear guidelines in README and ignoring GitHub issues.
Re: WiringPi – deprecated
#125I haven't used this library but I maintain a couple moderately well-used python libraries and completely sympathize with these frustrations. The absolute worst was a guy who asked for all sorts of changes then, when I had made it clear I was going a different direction, he tried to start a public shaming on Twitter, this site, Reddit, and even the Wikipedia page (since removed at my own request). It was un-believable…
>He was the cto of a company, too, at least at that time.
Your mistake was not completely destroying him. This behavior exists because one side likes to be civil which further encourages the irrational ones to continue.
Re: WiringPi – deprecated
#126Step 1. Person A makes some piece of software under an open source license. (GPL) Step 2. This piece of software becomes widely used, primarily since it's open source licensed Step 3. (Modern variation) Person A feels cheated for not getting rich and creates some kind of drama. This doesn't make any sense at all, to me.
Not to be a complete ass or anything, but technically posting a comment on HN REQUIRES you to read the article before spreading complete misinformation.
Your comment completely contradicts everything written in the article. It doesn't make sense to you because you don't want it to make sense to you.
Step 1. The author doesn't use GPL.
Step 2. The author clearly intended wiringPi to have a limited audience. He doesn't want it to become widely used. He intentionally limited support to a handful of hardware devices. It was meant to be used by experienced C programmers.
Step 3 isn't about the author being cheated. Fame or money were never mentioned. The author is overwhelmed with work, whether it is caused by the open source project, a new job or caring for his family doesn't matter.
However there is a special situation happening here that generally only applies to open software projects. The vast majority of the bug reports involve problems that have already been solved in newer versions. This means that even if the author had an infinite amount of time, all of it would be wasted on already solved problems. There is no reason to work on the project anymore since the rate of progress has stalled. The project has entered a zombie stage and then one day the maintainer announces that the project will be shutdown.
Re: WiringPi – deprecated
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who maintains open source software, I sympathize with the author and agree that he doesn't owe users personalized help. However, he does have to comply with the legal requirements of the license he uses. Personally, I don't use GPL/LGPL licenses, but if I did, I'd be careful to comply with the provisions of the license.
> However, he does have to comply with the legal requirements of the license he uses. No, the author doesn't. Not really. The license governs the use of people who don't hold the copyright. That's why the author of a project can just turn around and release under a new license.
No, that's incorrect. The license governs the conduct of both parties (here, the creator and the users).
Yes, he can release new software under a new license, but any past software he released under a certain license, he has to follow those terms.
If you come to an agreement with another party (like you agree to license a movie, or book to them), you can't just unilaterally cancel that agreement. That's not how contract law works.
Re: WiringPi – deprecated
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who's gone back and forth on licensing for personal projects over the years, tried to engage user communities for said personal projects, and tried to use various open source projects — I totally sympathize with the maintainers. As with a lot of things in life, user engagement is a two-way street. If folks want constructive engagement from the users, there needs to be constructive engagement from the maint…
I'm not following the jump from some commercial product turning out to be vaporware to it being an OSS problem.
> I'm not following the jump from some commercial product turning out to be vaporware to it being an OSS problem.
They're all open source projects. Sure, I can grab the Gerber files and try my hand at surface mount soldering. But like any open source project where the build system is too archaic it's massively beneficial to start from an already assembled version.
Re: WiringPi – deprecated
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, he does have to comply with the legal requirements of the license he uses. No, the author doesn't. Not really. The license governs the use of people who don't hold the copyright. That's why the author of a project can just turn around and release under a new license.
No, that's incorrect. The license governs the conduct of both parties (here, the creator and the users). Yes, he can release new software under a new license, but any past software he released under a certain license, he has to follow those terms. If you come to an agreement with another party (like you agree to license a movie, or book to them), you can't just unilaterally cancel that agreement. That's not how contr…
He can release the software under a completely different license. Even if that is the exact same software. He can remove all downloads of the software from the websites etc. He owns the copyright.
He cannot prevent people who obtained a version of the software under a license from doing what they want with it under the terms of that license.
Re: WiringPi – deprecated
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, he does have to comply with the legal requirements of the license he uses. No, the author doesn't. Not really. The license governs the use of people who don't hold the copyright. That's why the author of a project can just turn around and release under a new license.
No, that's incorrect. The license governs the conduct of both parties (here, the creator and the users). Yes, he can release new software under a new license, but any past software he released under a certain license, he has to follow those terms. If you come to an agreement with another party (like you agree to license a movie, or book to them), you can't just unilaterally cancel that agreement. That's not how contr…
Well, the FSF/GNU disagree: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DeveloperViolate
What kind of obligation do you think GPL/MIT/BSD/Apache could possibly place on the author?