Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When 'open core' projects reject contributions for competing with the EE

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 202 posts

Re: When 'open core' projects reject contributions for competing with the EE

#191

Post by pjmlp »

mhx1138 wrote: post #21
Sytten wrote: post #14

How dare them wanting to make money. Seriously this is fine, if you are not happy fork it and maintain it yourself. AFAIK this is the whole point of open core. What you are asking here is that business to support code for free that reduces their revenue. Code is a liability most of the time not an asset.

I think the problem is the terminology. People grew up when open source software was also free. Open core uses the same terminology, although products are only open and free in a limited way. I don’t want to assume intend, but many users are mislead that way.

We have had free source code for decades, it is also a reason why UNIX didn't die inside Bell Labs.

The difference is that older generations understand developers have bills to pay.

Re: When 'open core' projects reject contributions for competing with the EE

#192

Post by pydry »

bmitc wrote: post #130
xbar wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a culture of entitlement surrounding open source which drives "expectations" from people who give stuff away for free and it's maddening.

Again, expecting a product to be supported unless otherwise stated is not entitlement. Expecting support is not the same as demanding or even expecting people to work for free or at all. What it does mean is that issues and PRs are treated professionally and without antagonistic behavior. Once again, if you feel every contributor is entitled, don't open source your project or disable issues and make it very clear iss…

>Again, expecting a product to be supported unless otherwise stated is not entitlement.

It 100% is entitlement, and open source is not a "product" because you don't pay for it. The developers of open source owe you nothing.

Re: When 'open core' projects reject contributions for competing with the EE

#193

Post by pydry »

1000100_1000101 wrote: post #124
sethops1 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author of the PR expected it to be merged. That is entitlement. They could have discussed the feature with the maintainers beforehand but AFAICT they did not.

AFAICT, the maintainer is the one lacking communication skills. Perhaps the author commented something to the effect of 'you could have told me this before I wasted my time' in the deleted comments towards the end. Or perhaps they were profanity laden. Perhaps a mix of both. We'll never know for sure. What we do know, is the maintainer chose to ignore any communication related to this PR, for months, until someone po…

>What we do know, is the maintainer chose to ignore any communication related to this PR, for months

Which is entirely their prerogative. All they did was build something and give it away for free.

As I said, it's a culture of entitlement that drives people to think that anyone's PR should be looked at is owed.

Re: When 'open core' projects reject contributions for competing with the EE

#194

Post by bmitc »

pydry wrote: post #192
bmitc wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, expecting a product to be supported unless otherwise stated is not entitlement. Expecting support is not the same as demanding or even expecting people to work for free or at all. What it does mean is that issues and PRs are treated professionally and without antagonistic behavior. Once again, if you feel every contributor is entitled, don't open source your project or disable issues and make it very clear iss…

>Again, expecting a product to be supported unless otherwise stated is not entitlement. It 100% is entitlement, and open source is not a "product" because you don't pay for it. The developers of open source owe you nothing .

> The developers of open source owe you nothing.

For the umpteenth time in this discussion, no one said they did. And please note what I implicitly defined as supported, which is basically that a non-antagonistic conversation can be had about issues and contributions. That is not entitlement.

Re: When 'open core' projects reject contributions for competing with the EE

#195

Post by pydry »

bmitc wrote: post #194
pydry wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Again, expecting a product to be supported unless otherwise stated is not entitlement. It 100% is entitlement, and open source is not a "product" because you don't pay for it. The developers of open source owe you nothing .

> The developers of open source owe you nothing. For the umpteenth time in this discussion, no one said they did. And please note what I implicitly defined as supported, which is basically that a non-antagonistic conversation can be had about issues and contributions. That is not entitlement.

>no one said they did.

Actually you did when you said, among other things:

>To me, it just sets an implicit expectation of "this is something I support"

>Again, expecting a product to be supported unless otherwise stated is not entitlement

If you describing something you expect, you are describing something that you feel that you are owed.

Re: When 'open core' projects reject contributions for competing with the EE

#196

Post by pydry »

bmitc wrote: post #137
pulvinar wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the maintainer's point of view, any new contribution requires work to vet it and check that it won't break something else, insidiously inject malware, etc., so what value it adds has to appear to be worth the trouble. Even when the contributor is certain that their PR is perfect and should be "no trouble" for the maintainer. This "hill" that has to be gotten over by the contributor is just a reality of the situa…

Just document it on the README: PRs are will not be accepted or vetted due to . It's as simple as that.

Just ask if you want to raise a PR. Explain what you want to do. Or fuck off. It's as simple as that.

You're not owed an explanation just because somebody gave you something for free. The maintainer might have complicated reasons for wanting to accept some PRs and not others and might not want to put the work in to write it down.

They're not obligated to explain this to the all and sundry just in case somebody wants to raise a drive by PR.

If you think they are obligated, that's indicative of a culture of entitlement.

Re: When 'open core' projects reject contributions for competing with the EE

#197

Post by gtirloni »

pydry wrote: post #173
gtirloni wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The PR author apparently didn't want a freebee and actually spent time contributing.

The PR author had an expectation that their PR deserved to be merged. The people who agree with that are the ones who see FOSS as a freebie.

The people who complain about others seeing FOSS as a freebie often say the "free loaders" don't contribute back. When they do contribute, the goalposts get moved.

Re: When 'open core' projects reject contributions for competing with the EE

#198

Post by pydry »

bmitc wrote: post #187
Ferret7446 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communication requires work from both side. Authors of open source software owe you nothing, including the work of communication. At a baseline, you are responsible for the maintainer's communication burden too, such as reading in between the lines and accommodating for their schedule (they may need weeks to respond). If you don't think it's a burden, then why not fork the project and become the maintainer yourself?…

> Authors of open source software owe you nothing, including the work of communication. This is a tiring discussion, because this is exactly what I'm talking about. No one is here talking about how anyone owes one anything. In fact, no one in any part of life owes one anything if you'd like to go that route. But effective communication and expectation setting avoids the vast amount of communication issues. If a maint…

>No one is here talking about how anyone owes one anything.

You were. You were describing what you "expect" from maintainers. That is the same thing as saying what you are owed.

E.g. when I make a contract I expect the other side to honor it. I am owed that because they signed a contract.

I expect people to not spit on me on the street - that's part of an unspoken societal contract.

If somebody makes a commitment, I expect them to follow through on it (even if they are not legally bound to) - again, part of an unspoken societal contract.

If I email somebody, I don't expect a response under all circumstances - again, unspoken societal contract.

What you were describing above were additional expectations you have on people who gave you something for free in exchange for nothing.

Re: When 'open core' projects reject contributions for competing with the EE

#199

Post by bmitc »

pydry wrote: post #195
bmitc wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The developers of open source owe you nothing. For the umpteenth time in this discussion, no one said they did. And please note what I implicitly defined as supported, which is basically that a non-antagonistic conversation can be had about issues and contributions. That is not entitlement.

>no one said they did. Actually you did when you said, among other things: >To me, it just sets an implicit expectation of "this is something I support" >Again, expecting a product to be supported unless otherwise stated is not entitlement If you describing something you expect , you are describing something that you feel that you are owed.

Expectations and entitlement are not the same thing.

Why even participate in open source if everyone seems to hate it and be on edge?

Post reply on HN