My boundaries as an open source developer

There’s a difference between “please don’t ask for support” and “I’m happy to support you even though legally you can’t force me to support this”.

"as is" is a specific legal term in the USA: https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/as-is/

As-is is a term used in warranty law to disclaim the seller's liability for faults in the item sold. The buyer accepts the item in the present condition, whether the faults are apparent or not

It doesn't use the term directly, no. Because to hackers, especially back in 1999, Free and Open Source were one in the same. It was just a difference of branding. However Bruce differentiates between "Open Source" and "Free Software" in writing and he only does so because public perception of what "Open Source" actually means had already been muddied in the year since OSI's founding and the freedoms afforded by FLOSS were already being de-emphasized and put on the back burner.

To quote Bruce:

> Most hackers know that Free Software and Open Source are just two words for the same thing. Unfortunately, though, Open Source has de-emphasized the importance of the freedoms involved in Free Software.....

> ......Sadly, as I've tended toward promotion of Free Software rather than Open Source, Eric Raymond seems to be losing his free software focus. The Open Source certification mark has already been abused in ways I find unconscionable and that I will not abide. I fear that the Open Source Initiative is drifting away from the Free Sofware values with which we originally created it.

There would be no need to make any kind of distinction between Free Software and Open Source if Open Source was being perceived as Free Software.

OSI was and always will be a marketing gimmick [0] created to sell the idea of open source to commercially interested parties.

> We realized that the Netscape announcement had created a precious window of time within which we might finally be able to get the corporate world to listen to what we have to teach about the superiority of an open development process. We realized it was time to dump the confrontational attitude that has been associated with `free software' in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that motivated Netscape. We brainstormed about tactics and a new label. Open source, contributed by Chris Peterson, was the best thing we came up with.

Not to downplay OSI at all. It was extremely important and widely influential in Netscape's journey to becoming Firefox and I'd even argue is still important today. But the issue centered around what "Free" means ("Free" as in freedom - not beer - which is why the term "libre" is often used as well) and that "Free Software" already had a poor reputation in the business world and so it needed to be rebranded. Eric Raymond made it very clear that he places importance on phrasing and branding and attributes the tactics used by OSI to its success and why the Free Software movement failed. [1]

Honestly a comment by Havoc Pennington on that very post, dated Jun 28, 1999, sums up the issue perfectly.

>I think Eric's analysis of the facts is basically right. i.e. the "open source as business" stuff has gotten us a lot of popularity. The danger is that we fall for our own marketing program. That is, new community members join, and we have to say "we didn't really mean that. Really we meant freedom. The business stuff is for the suits." An increasing number of new members just don't understand freedom, or copyright, or anything like that; they joined "Linux," not "GNU."

[0] http://web.archive.org/web/19981206185148/http://www.opensou...

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170630183629/http://www.linuxt...

So much this. I'm glad he put this out there. I'll start linking to it too.

There seems to be a common misconception about open source. When I release software as open source, it does not mean I work for you for free, need to provide you with anything, even need to be nice to you. I may. Or I may not.

When I release software under an open source license, then we have a very specific deal. You are entitled to do certain things with the software, for example use it free of charge, or change it, or redistribute it, and I'm entitled to certain things in return, for example you keep attribution, you publish changes that you made under the same license, etc. Nothing more, nothing less. I could be an individual that hacked something in their free time, or I'm a multi-national mega-corp. Does not matter. It just means we have a deal.

It's nice if a community emerges, and if I feel like it, I may participate in it. And accept pull requests or help with troubleshooting or implement new features. But I don't have to and I don't have to feel any obligation whatsoever. Anybody who thinks otherwise has misunderstood the concept or is maliciously misusing it.

That's it.

This is misunderstood not just by users, but even by creators themselves. They feel pressure, they feel bad if they don't respond in time, or implement new requested features, or accept pull requests. They shouldn't. Open source just means I published it once with a very specific deal. I may continue to do so if it makes sense to me, but I can also just stop doing so. I implement features when I have a reason for it, for example I like to have them in the software so I can use them myself, or maybe because I'm a corp that sees a business need. But implementing them for free just because somebody asked for it, that's just asking for trouble. If you do that regularly, and not mostly because you think it's fun, but because you want to "support the community" or whatnot, you are taking steps towards burnout, and ultimately are not just hurting yourself but even the larger community, because you are fostering the expectation that that's what open source devs should do. No, they shouldn't. That's not what open source is about.

It's about a specific deal. Nothing more, nothing less.

No there is not something. That's a misconception.

The author is under no obligation at all. Of course a request is no problem. But then if that request is ignored, then that's no problem either. Who knows why there is no response. Maybe the person has other things in life needing attention. Maybe they have a bad day/week/month. Maybe they are burnt out. Maybe they have already responded to you 100x or maybe they just don't like your name.

If they do respond -- great! It's likely in their interest to respond to bug reports since it's likely in their interest to have less buggy software for themselves (if they use their own software) or for their customers (if their customers use their software). But maybe it's not, maybe they have moved on, or maybe they are just on vacation. If they are nice, then they tell you. But even that's something they don't have to do.

You are free to dislike them for that, and you are free to not use your software anymore.

You are usually even free to fork the project if you want your pull requests in and they keep being ignored or rejected. If others think like you, you get a community right away. But many people don't fork. Because it's a lot of work suddenly being a maintainer. Then you suddenly get those requests and opinions and pressure. Don't like that? See! That's the issue here! If you don't like it, then don't criticize others for not liking it either.