Live data from Hacker News

Open source is not about you (2018)

gist.github.com

161–170 of 196 posts

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#161
post #42

> As a user of something open source you are not thereby entitled to anything at all I understand what the author means, but I think that in any human-2-human interaction, we are all entitled to at least basic courtesy. For example, if you show courtesy by contributing to an open source project and following all the guidelines they have, I think it's fair to assume that courtesy will be shown in return. I know that m…

I don’t know you but I like you. Courtesy costs very little.

I agree with you, but this is one of those things where if you haven't had the experience of being part of a popular open source project, you don't realize how bad the scaling effects are.

Let's say courtesy only requires five minutes of my time. There are millions of users of the programming language I work on. Let's say only 0.1% of them desire my courtesy. Even at that small fraction, I'm going to spend 83 hours out of every 24 hour day (including weekends and holidays) giving each of them that cheap courtesy.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he's completely right on that point. There's this weird misconception in the tech community that "open source" means "you'll accept my contributions if I send them". I've seen people try to argue (in complete seriousness) that SQLite isn't open source because the developers keep contributions private. I don't know where the mistaken conflating of "open source" and "developed by the community" comes from, but it i…

> I don't know where the mistaken conflating of "open source" and "developed by the community" comes from i think people confuse github with a social network and all the extra social conventions that come with that instead of just a place to remotely host a git repository. Open source is just a license model, if no PRs were accepted, all communication ignored, and no bug fixes made globally forever an open source pro…

If you don't want your github work to be considered social, MAKE YOUR REPOSITORIES PRIVATE.

80% of my shit on github is private. And I have taken my licks on mistakes I made on the rest. I had to redo a whole release roadmap because people were rightfully pissed at me for cutting a corner. I didn't have to kiss their asses about it, I just had to say what I was going to do to prevent it from happening again.

It sucked, and I am better for it.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything you in a public space, will be made social by someone eventually. If you (GP) don't like it then tough shit. That's a You Problem, not an Us Problem. And you can make github repositories that others can see but not the rest of us, it just costs a little money. You can host a book club at your house too and not have to listen to other people snicker at your friends' commentary on the book at the coffee shop.…

Making a PR is also in the public space, and if your PR is lazy spam, you deserve a less generous response than the one Hickey gave.

A less generous response is one thing. Getting defensive about it and saying nobody is entitled to shit is something else entirely. And that's where the antisocial people of HN usually go.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A gift economy only exists between people who agree that they are participating in one. Gifts between equals create expectations of reciprocity. If you use open source software, you are expected to contribute. Accepting a gift without an intention to reciprocate is an admission of social inferiority. Users who don't see themselves as socially inferior to developers are not participating in the gift economy and not bo…

> Accepting a gift without an intention to reciprocate is an admission of social inferiority. I wish I'd read your response more thoroughly before responding from my phone in a parking lot. You do not understand gift economies at all. You've reduced them to transactionality, which is capitalism, and capitalism kills gift economies for fun. Robin Wall Kimmerer is a molecular biologist who is also a mother and a member…

Perhaps we are talking about two different concepts called "gift economy".

The gift economy concept I'm familiar with has been used to describe various non-state polities, where people exchange gifts to maintain relationships and establish social standing. Gifts between peers are expected to be of similar value, while patrons are expected to give their clients more valuable gifts than they receive.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#165
if you publish something to the public, you are responsible for it to a degree.

You can't just say "i'm not responsible" and avoid responsibility.

"I put rat poison in candies and put it outside my door for halloween, but it had a sign that says 'The owner is not responsible for any harm or effects resulting from consuming these candies'" , see how silly that sounds?

If you advertise your software as intended to do a thing, licenses might protect you legally, but not morally or ethically, from people attempting to use it, and relying on it. Imagine if the maintainers of glibc decided to backdoor it, but since they're not responsible for it, and you're on your own for using it, it's not their fault right? If the maintainers of openssl decided to drop sha256 support, they're not responsible for the chaos that ensues right?

FFS! how clueless are devs sometimes. It's insane.

This right here is the worst part of open source. Don't use open source! that's the message here. If you're in the EU, and you're seeing all these efforts to rely on open source software to avoid American-made software, read this post! Don't use open source software because the authors of that software could sabotage their work or do anything they want with the software and they feel like they have no obligation to anyone. Does that sound familiar? At least American big-tech gets fined on a regular bases for doing nasty things, at least they have executives you can imprison if needed be. And they're not under any illusion that "i'm not responsible" is a get out of jail free card. Use only properly supported software.

I'm a bit salty, because I've relied on and supported Open Source software several times before. Every. Single. Time. Even when i'm creating PRs, they're dicks about it. Even when I create issues. Who cares, they're not even responsible enough to refuse support.

Here is what should be done, if most devs really agree with this take: You can write any software you want, but publishing it to the public should only be permitted after you pass tests, like your identity being verified, support process being established,etc... You can't just give away food, vehicles, houses, just about anything you can think of without some requirement of that sort. If devs are going out of their way like this to be irresponsible, then the chaos and damage they cause must be mitigated.

When you "Open" anything, it could be a door, software, a canister of nerve-gas; you're responsible for what comes out of it and how it affects others. you're also responsible for what happens when others enter it.

The only way around this I can think of is if perhaps in every way a person can download or access your software, publish a clear and unmistakable warning "Do not use this software for any reason at all. Do not read the source code. Do not attempt to build it, or run it." even then, you're not free from all responsibility.

It's like malware authors that put disclaimers like "for educational purposes only" on their malware publications. you'll still go to prison, it isn't a defense.

I'm not claiminng random people have entitlements to get their PRs approved, or issues resolved. But for developers to go so far as show hostility towards people who use their software, is not far from actually publishing harmful software.

A good and reasonable balance might be that software that's used by more than a certain threshold of people should be required to either support their software, or close-source it. You have free-speech, not the right to put the public in harm's way. Honestly, I think this sort of whining is what is driving all these verification laws and restrictions.

I think being glad people are using your software so much, and they're requesting support, creating PRs, and so on is the right attitude with open source software. If you get mad about all that, you're hurting the freedoms of open source devs all over by trying to make your software open for the sake of clout or whatever.

And really, don't publish a repository to the public if you expect no contribution. Just host tarball on your site. "Open source is not about you", yeah, sure, it isn't about irresponsible devs getting free advertisement and farming clout either.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#166
post #42

> As a user of something open source you are not thereby entitled to anything at all I understand what the author means, but I think that in any human-2-human interaction, we are all entitled to at least basic courtesy. For example, if you show courtesy by contributing to an open source project and following all the guidelines they have, I think it's fair to assume that courtesy will be shown in return. I know that m…

> we are all entitled to at least basic courtesy

Basic courtesy here, to me, means that the maintainer should be polite and probably should say something (it's not very nice to be ignored), even if it is to say that they won't review the contribution.

But that's about it. My experience as a maintainer is that too often, people feel entitled to a lot more than that.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#167

if you publish something to the public, you are responsible for it to a degree. You can't just say "i'm not responsible" and avoid responsibility. "I put rat poison in candies and put it outside my door for halloween, but it had a sign that says 'The owner is not responsible for any harm or effects resulting from consuming these candies'" , see how silly that sounds? If you advertise your software as intended to do a…

> if you publish something to the public, you are responsible for it to a degree.

Have you read the open source licenses? They say the exact opposite.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#168
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, TFA is a good example of how to write down expectations explicitly. But as far as dinging Hickey for the fact that he eventually needed to write bluntly? I'm not feeling that at all. Some folks feel that open-source teams owe them free work. No amount of explanation will change many of those folks' minds. They understand the arguments. They just don't agree.

> he eventually needed to write bluntly Is there a history of that here? Were there earlier clear statements of expectations (like CONTRIBUTING.md) that expressed the same expectations, but in a straightforward way, that people just willfully disregarded? I don't mean to "ding" anybody, I mostly just felt bad that things had gotten to the point where the author was so frustrated. I completely agree that project owner…

> Is there a history of that here?

I have been maintaining not-super-successful open source projects, and I've had to deal with entitled jerks. Every. Single. Time. I am totally convinced that any successful open source project sees a lot more of that.

> Were there earlier clear statements of expectations (like CONTRIBUTING.md) that expressed the same expectations, but in a straightforward way, that people just willfully disregarded?

IMO it's not needed. I don't have to clearly state expectations: I open source my code, you're entitled to exactly what the licence says. The CONTRIBUTING.md is more some kind of documentation, trying to avoid having to repeat the same thing for each contribution. But I don't think anyone would write "we commit to providing free support and free work someone asks for it" in there :-).

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#169
post #35
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that. I am a non-programmer who vibe codes personal web apps for Magic: The Gathering and Pokémon TCG. I turn them into github pages for easy access for myself. I don't share them with my hobby communities because I don't want to hear feedback because I don't want these finished projects to become eternal projects.

Curious what does your app do/web app? And how good is the vibe coding part, do you generally get what you're trying to achieve in first few runs? That's cool you're able to make what you want with that tech.

My latest apps are

* Cardsphere (Magic card trading website) wishlist to inventory comparer * Scryfall (Magic card database) search result CSV Downloader * Cube Tagger, an app to easily tag cards with function tags for easy categorizing in cubes (boardgamified collection of Magic cards)

The vibe coding part is wonderful because I can "make" the software I want. However, it always takes hours of runs to get to where I need it to be because I'm unpracticed at project planning. I constantly hit critical edge cases and UX problems.

Re: Open source is not about you (2018)

#170

Counterpoints: - You are entitled to human decency. Maintainers don't get to be rude just because they run a project. This is a common thing in a lot of projects; maintainers have power, and this allows them to be rude without concern. Not ok. - As a maintainer, if you publish your work as open source, you already acknowledge you are engaging with an entire community, culture, and ethos. We all know how it works: you…

> you put a license on your work that (often, but not always) says people need to share their changes

Permissive licences do not say that. Copyleft licences say that people need to share their changes with their users.

As a maintainer, if I choose a copyleft licence, it is to protect the users. If someone makes a product using my code, I want the user to be able to see that code even if it is modified. It does not mean at all that I am interested in adopting those changes in my repo. No need to be prepared for it.

> maintainers do owe this culture some form of communication of their intentions

I disagree. I already give you my work for free, that's something. I don't see why I should get out of my way to communicate my intentions. When in doubt, you are free to contact me (e.g. open an issue) and ask. And I am free to not answer.

> My personal issue: I spend hours working on preparing an Issue or PR to fix someone's project, and they ignore or close it without a word. Now I don't want to contribute to anything. This is bad for the open source community.

Happened to me as well, and it is very frustrating. But that's on me, I should have asked before doing the work. It has happened to me that I asked, the maintainer explained what they would want, and then I spent weeks in my free time working on a PR that never got reviewed. Just because the maintainer didn't have time. It is frustrating, but I am not entitled to anything. My PR can live in my fork.

If I need my PR to be merged upstream such that the upstream project takes ownership of it and maintains it for me, then I should look into a contractual relationship with them.

Post reply on HN