361–370 of 408 posts
I’m not sure why people are so fork-shy. Forking is the greatest gift of open source. It’s basically the point and the core of what it means to have software freedom. I think the anxiety around forking is unwarranted, especially in scenarios where the author clearly has divergent goals and values from a large number of people. It seems the forest has been lost from the trees: exercise your freedom, fork, and let dive…
I think this is a case of the end justifies the means. The end: get the maintainer to change his code the way I want. The means: bully and abuse him to force him into it because that sometimes works.
I’m not sure why people are so fork-shy. Forking is the greatest gift of open source. It’s basically the point and the core of what it means to have software freedom. I think the anxiety around forking is unwarranted, especially in scenarios where the author clearly has divergent goals and values from a large number of people. It seems the forest has been lost from the trees: exercise your freedom, fork, and let dive…
This whole issue is confusing to me. It's like no one ever heard of fork. It's hardly mentioned in the comments. The author owes people what they paid him to do, which is nothing. If he wants to go unsafe and fast that's his business. I don't have to ride with him. I can make a copy of his car for free and drive it the way I want. I think this is a case of the end justifies the means. The end: get the maintainer to c…
Shame on people who forget this, and demand more than those freedoms from authors who so generously grant them to others. Based upon what I’ve read, I would have checked out from this project as the author well before they did given the harassment they’ve apparently been getting for not merging PRs into their repo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that contract is precisely spelled in the license file, idk what you all are on about.
The social contract is generally not written down anywhere. Here's what we're all on about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract I consent to let other people make demands of my OSS because I wish to make demands of their OSS because together we can build a better world than either of us could on our own - because I am consenting to be part of a community . I have security-sensitive Rust code on GitHub. I'm…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These kind of entitled attitude If you offer code to the public – and present it as an active, dependable project – professional behavior is exactly what you implicitly promise and signed up for . If you can’t offer that (at any time, and for any reason), then you should immediately make that clear, front-and-center, to any current and future users. It isn’t “entitlement” on part of the users – the users are making…
I've never heard of "implicit promises". For me a promise is by definition explicit. Anything else are assumptions, in this case false assumptions.
I've been using actix-web for my work for some time, contributing however I can while learning Rust and myriad other subjects. This was the third major public event involving controversial design and implementation decisions. A great number of people in the Rust community have refused to accept that not everyone subscribes to their ideology about use of unsafe. They've repeatedly tried to impose their values and prio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
he's walking away, but before he does he decides to brick up the door he was holding. that's ok though because the house has lots of other doors that are based on the door he was holding open, all people have to do is to go through the effort to find the best version of the door that is most like the door he was holding open before that he's bricked up and thus is not available for comparison anymore. I certainly thi…
> he's walking away, but before he does he decides to brick up the door he was holding. If you're interested in the project you can still access the source code. Hell, the author asked for volunteers to pick up where he left off. Yet, you're only complaining that he is no longer working for you and complying with your personal whims. That's the problem. A guy volunteers himself and donates his expertise and work to g…
>> the author even asked for volunteers
citation needed
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's absolutely correct that people don't have obligations simply by putting some code online. But they do have obligations when they start telling people to use their code. We understand this as humans even in realms far from open source: if I see you approaching a door, I am under no obligation to open it just because I'm physically able to, but if I open a door for you, I'd better hold it until you're finished w…
> Ignoring security conventions, and then adopting a "take my ball and go home attitude" That statement is quite wrong. It's not a "take my ball and go home" attitude. You are not the boss of a FLOSS maintainer not are entitled to order anyone around to do your bidding. At best you're addressing a person and asking them to do you a favour. If the maintainer doesn't feel he should be bossed around by you then he has b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely not. You can get professional (but not necessarily timely) support from me for multiple projects I maintain on GitHub, for free. For many people, their personal interest in open source is writing code for fun and showing it off. For others, it's making a product that people can rely on. The second one is my motivation; don't take that away from me.
That’s fine. It’s even admirable if you to do that. But it isn’t and shouldn’t be mandatory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never heard of "implicit promises". For me a promise is by definition explicit. Anything else are assumptions, in this case false assumptions.
“Implicit promises” is going into my Orwellian dictionary. What a farce, do people really believe such a thing?